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

[Spiryt]

As to be expected, monks spade as real weapon would be certainly lethal weapon, even though it would be a little funky (it seems that it would require rather precise cuts as edge is perpendicular to shaft)

The other two are rather ridiculous in my humble opinion. You could probably do a harm with them, the same way you can do harm with heavily loaded shopping bag.

[DMfromTheAbyss]

From some practical martial arts knoledge and the same question coming up with one of my characters, the Monks Spade is essentially a slightly upgraded quarter staff capable of being an ok polearm. Not built as much for heavy armor penetration as a halberd or glaive, but a tad faster, more for speed and potential double ended fighting applications.

The ring blade.. no idea but I'm skeptical even after seeing it in a certain video game.

The killer circle would be moderately effective at dissuading an attacker, though like many chain weapons without an extremely lucky or skilled user, not terribly dangerous, as it'd have difficulties hitting properly at variable range. (aka moving targets) Might make a good weapon for showing off, but for legitimate dealing of damage a heavy enough bag of rocks would indeed be as effective;)

[Dhavaer]

Two questions:

What would be the best method to create a sword with modern technology, with the caveat that there has to be exposed silver on the blade (it doesn't have to be all silver, lines or a design of it down the middle would be fine.

While someone adjusts to using a gun with less recoil than they're used to, how are they likely to miss (too high, too low, off to one side, etc.)?

[Norsesmithy]

To get silver on the blade, I would probably electroplate. That would be the easiest and most thorough method, anyways.

As far as constructing the sword itself, I think that there are probably some unexplored (due to cost of equipment) techniques using hydroforming that would make a good blade.

As for the gun, the bullet leaves the barrel before the gun starts to kick perceptively, so using a lower recoiling or higher recoiling load is not going to change how you aim, just your recovery time between shots.

[Mike_G]

I was referring to modern armies against modern armies, which might have not been to apparent, since it's clear that trench warfare and defensive fortifications still have a role to play, but they're not unbreakable in any way.


The biggest weakness of a fortified line is that modern armies can just use helicopters and deploy behind it.

Static defensive lines are mush less effective now that we have airmobile forces. The losses from a scattered paratrooper drop would still be less than the losses from an assault on a fortified line.

As others have said, modern artillery, and especially communications between front line forces and supporting arms make even a frontal assault on a defensive line more likely to succeed than in WWI. A complex trench system is pretty obvious and visible as well, and in modern combat the maxim is "If you can see it, you can kill it." Punching a hole in a trench line would be easy for the military we have today.

The great weakness of a defensive line is that you have to spread your forces out over the whole line to defend it. The attacker has the luxury of concentrating his forces at the point of attack. For this reason, tying up fewer troops in a weaker defensive line to slow and break up an attack, rather than stop it, with mobile reserves behind it to respond to an attack and push back or destroy the enemy force battered and disorganized as it overcame the first line is usually a better option.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The biggest weakness of a fortified line is that modern armies can just use helicopters and deploy behind it.

Wouldn't modern infantry AA (not to mention the real AA guns you'd no doubt find in a serious fortification) make any approach by helicopters suicidal?

[Mike_G]

Wouldn't modern infantry AA (not to mention the real AA guns you'd no doubt find in a serious fortification) make any approach by helicopters suicidal?

Well, yeah, if they fly directly over the trench.

But flying over some obstacle normally impassable to ground forces, like a mountain or ocean that will anchor the flank of a trench, then deploying troops behind the trenchline works fine. Then you cut off the supplies to the troops in the trenches, take their cities, pull down the statues of their leaders, build a McDonald's and turn their daughters into slutty Brittney Spears fans.

MacArthur's "left hook" amphibious landing at Inchon in Korea basically cut the North Koreans off from their supply line and put two divisions behind them, driving on the retake Seoul and putting the NKPA between two armies. Better than just throwing those two divisions against the Pusan perimeter and hoping to break out.

[Dervag]

To get silver on the blade, I would probably electroplate. That would be the easiest and most thorough method, anyways.Would the silver tend to peel loose? I'm not familiar with electroplating.


Well, yeah, if they fly directly over the trench.

But flying over some obstacle normally impassable to ground forces, like a mountain or ocean that will anchor the flank of a trench, then deploying troops behind the trenchline works fine. Then you cut off the supplies to the troops in the trenches, take their cities, pull down the statues of their leaders, build a McDonald's and turn their daughters into slutty Brittney Spears fans.McDonald's is probably already there anyway, but I take your meaning.


MacArthur's "left hook" amphibious landing at Inchon in Korea basically cut the North Koreans off from their supply line and put two divisions behind them, driving on the retake Seoul and putting the NKPA between two armies. Better than just throwing those two divisions against the Pusan perimeter and hoping to break out.More generally, sea or air-mobile assaults work great for neutralizing a defensive line if you have sea or air superiority that approaches having complete supremacy.

Since the US pours truly vast amounts of resources into its navy and air force, today's US military thinkers tend to assume that this will be true in any conflict, and events tend to prove them right. However, it isn't necessarily true in all wars for whoever happens to be considering breaking the particular line in question.

If the enemy still has functioning air defenses over their nation in general, and/or a competent air force still flying, large scale airmobile assaults are a very dangerous game. Likewise for coastal defenses and warships messing with an amphibious assault.

The Inchon landing worked largely because the North Koreans didn't have a navy or good coast defenses in place.

[Mike_G]

More generally, sea or air-mobile assaults work great for neutralizing a defensive line if you have sea or air superiority that approaches having complete supremacy.

Since the US pours truly vast amounts of resources into its navy and air force, today's US military thinkers tend to assume that this will be true in any conflict, and events tend to prove them right. However, it isn't necessarily true in all wars for whoever happens to be considering breaking the particular line in question.

If the enemy still has functioning air defenses over their nation in general, and/or a competent air force still flying, large scale airmobile assaults are a very dangerous game. Likewise for coastal defenses and warships messing with an amphibious assault.

The Inchon landing worked largely because the North Koreans didn't have a navy or good coast defenses in place.

Definitely easier to do if you control the sea or the sky, but it can be pulled off without total superiority.

Even by WWII, paratroopers, glider borne infantry and just mechanized infantry in general proved able to bypass defensive strongpoints. See the Maginot Line and it's relative lack of impact on the fighting considering how much resources France poured into building it.

Trenches as a defensive force multiplier worked great in WWI because defensive warfare was pretty much s advanced as it was going to get (mines, barbed wire, machine guns, accurate, magazine fed rifles, rapid firing artillery which can be easily registered for defensive fire) were all in place, and while they each have been improved somewhat, those are all still the gold standard for defensive warfare. The only really big addition is light, man portable anti-armor. Offensive tech was lagging behind.

Since then, artillery, communications, combined arms, "stormtrooper" tactics and armor have all improved. All were pioneered specifically to deal with the defenses of the Western Front's trenches. Add air power and Blitzkrieg style mobile warfare to that, and now we see that offensive warfare has come a long way in the last century, while the trench really hasn't.

Even lower tech forces can breach fortified positions with good small unit tactics, and a willingness to lose some troops. Despite a lack of any of the heavy support we've been discussing, the Vietnamese managed to overrun the well dug in and supported French at Dien Bien Phu, and breached a number of US firebases over the course of the war.

I suppose in the event that the enemy has no choice but land assault over a short, easily defined front, a good old fashioned trench system could work, but I think there's a good reason we haven't really seen much of that.

[Kemper Boyd]

The biggest weakness of a fortified line is that modern armies can just use helicopters and deploy behind it.

If I'm defending a flank with second-line troops (light infantry, semi-obsolete armor, too little artillery or anti-tank weapons) and you actually use your air mobile reserve to flank me or surrond me, I'm at least not dying in vain, since you're using up resources which are irreplaceable in the short term for you.

[Swordguy]

Definitely easier to do if you control the sea or the sky, but it can be pulled off without total superiority.


I'd argue the point. Sure, you can do with without the literal definition of "total superiority", but all of the major airborne operations in WWII (and beyond, really) have enjoyed near-total air supremacy.

Germany v Norway (Operation Weserübung) - 8 total Norweigan sorties in defense and no casualties incurred from them.

German v Netherlands (Operation Fall Gelb) - no air sorties in defense, though AAA fire all but wiped out reinforcements to the Fallschrimjaeger beachhead on the Dutch airfields.

German invasion of Crete (Operation Mercury) - no defensive airborne sorties

Invasion of North Africa (Operation Torch) - no defensive airborne sorties

Invasion of Sicily (Operation Husky) - no defensive airborne sorties

Invasion of Normandy (Operation Overlord) - Luftwaffe made 2 sorties the whole day, and none against the paratroopers

Operation MARKET-GARDEN - without checking, I think there was a single flight of Luftwaffe that tried to intercept the paras, and who were driven off by escorts.

etc, etc.

In every case, the control of the air in the theatre of operations was so lopsided as to effectively BE "total superiority". This stays true if even if you look at the airborne ops fromt he US v Japan, or the 187th Airborne RCT's operations in Korea, or the various Airmobile forces in Ia Drang and later in Vietnam, and all the way up tot he modern day. At NO time has an airborne force had to actually punch through an all-aspect air defense cordon to deliver their troops.

Now, a part of this is that airborne ops, by definition, are "unexpected" movements. The idea is to rapidly deploy a group of troops before the OPFOR can react, and it stands to reason that air defense would be as slow to react in a sufficient quantity to stop the landings as the rest of the defenders. However, the concept here is that of effectively "technologically equal opponents", which for all practical purposes means that neither side can guarantee air superiority. Between that and the availability of early-warning craft and satellite recon technology (which weren't available to defenders in any air-defense operation yet in history), it's far from a guarantee that an airmobile force in a quantity necessary to make a difference could take the defenders by surprise enough to get to the target.

Likewise, airmobile forces have not yet faced modern air-defense grids. The closest was in Vietnam, where Russian and Chinese equipment faced off against the US. But even there, the US didn't fly airborne ops head-on into a defended area - they always flew airborne forces into the boonies were there were only spotty air defenses.

All things considered, if two modern and evenly-matched opponents were involved in trench warfare and neither side had effectively total air superiority, I don't think that airmobile operations to bypass defense lines would be seriously considered. They might be able to pull it off, but there's every indication that they might not as well. Air supremacy really seems to be a necessary component of significant airmobile operations.

[Dervag]

Definitely easier to do if you control the sea or the sky, but it can be pulled off without total superiority.As Swordguy points out, that depends on how strictly you define "total supremacy." You don't need the condition "the enemy has no planes" to pull of an effective airborne assault. But "we outnumber the enemy air force three to two" isn't going to cut it for a large scale attack; your airmobile units are all too likely to take crippling losses before they even reach the battlefield.


Even by WWII, paratroopers, glider borne infantry and just mechanized infantry in general proved able to bypass defensive strongpoints. See the Maginot Line and it's relative lack of impact on the fighting considering how much resources France poured into building it.Obviously, if you put defenses on one third of the front your troops fight along, put the bulk of your mobile forces on another third, and leave the center uncovered, you're going to get creamed. That doesn't say much about the defenses themselves.

The Germans didn't cut through a trench system to get into the French interior. They just waltzed in through an open back door. And the French left the back door open because they'd overestimated the value of terrain and therefore neglected to provide the men and materiel to construct a strong defensive network in the area. That's the key to understanding the German success in 1940- an obstacle not covered by fire is not an obstacle, even if the obstacle in question is fifty or a hundred miles of wooded hill country.

Against an enemy less prone to strategic absent-mindedness, that might not have worked nearly as well. Moreover, it relied on the presence of a gap in the French lines large enough to march armies through. Dropping a division or two of airborne troops behind French lines would not have had the same effect as having the II Panzer-Korps roll up to the line of the Meuse in three days.
______


Even lower tech forces can breach fortified positions with good small unit tactics, and a willingness to lose some troops. Despite a lack of any of the heavy support we've been discussing, the Vietnamese managed to overrun the well dug in and supported French at Dien Bien Phu, and breached a number of US firebases over the course of the war.The Vietnamese used overwhelming artillery superiority at Dien Bien Phu, and the French had quite deliberately stranded themselves in hostile territory in conditions that (in hindsight) made resupply very difficult. So the Vietnamese did have heavy support, and the French were even gracious enough to shoot themselves through both feet before they arrived. Not a good test of the ease of overrunning a fortified position "despite a lack of heavy support."

That said, I can't speak for the US firebases in question.

[Fhaolan]

As regards the earlier ring polearm question:

What is the estimated practicality, if any, of the following weapons?

• The monk's spade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monk%27s_spade) (spade end only)?

• The ring blade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tira-soul3art.png)?

• The killer circle (http://bestgamewallpapers.com/files/genji/gozen-shizuka.jpg)?

The Monk's Spade: It's a real-life martial-art weapon. The spade blade is slashing-only, as it has only very, very limited piercing projections on either side. The slashing is also limited to side-to-side slashes, as the blade has no edge forward and back, so no pull or push cuts. So it's only useful if the opponent has no protective clothing or armour, and the weapon has a very flashy, high-movement style of use that screams 'martial arts'. If it was combined with another type of polearm, such as pick or spear points, it would gain more utility.

The Ring Blade: Total fantasy weapon. Assuming that the size of the ring is in scale to the person, this is to be used much like a hula-hoop, I would guess. As such, the weight of a blade that size would make almost impossible to use in that manner. Also, it cannot be used to block or parry an opponent's weapon, being purely a 'you can't get closer than x distance' style defensive weapon. There would be a ramp-up time needed to get it spinning, and the projecting points would catch on the opponent (and anything else nearby), stopping the spin and rendering the weilder defenceless until they untangled it and got it spinning again.

The Killer Circle: There are real-life weapons with some similarity to this. A simplified form of the Chinese wind-and-fire wheel, combined with the Kusarigama. Nothing particularly wrong with this weapon. It would basically be a close-quarters slashing attack, with the weighted chain being used to entangle and concuss. Oh, and never throw the ring. It won't help.

[Avilan the Grey]

Q2 Military Demographics and Manpower


Somewhere between 1% and 10% is a typical estimate, but larger numbers of men may be levied, especially during a crisis. If I recall correctly, Polybius is famously quoted as indicating that the entire male population of Italy could be called upon to fight in terms of reserve manpower. A medieval population estimate for England would be around 1,000,000, so say 500,000 males, and armies typically in the 5,000-30,000 men area.

So in short, regular ancient and medieval armies are typically composed of a very small proportion of the population, mainly because 90%+ are required to feed the combatants, but also because the logistics of warfare necessitate limited army size.

The Mongols are probably another good example to look to, as they were organised in huge units of 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, and 100,000, but initially were part time soldiers and herders.

Another thing to consider is the % of mercenaries. I am not really up to date on ancient and medieval armies, but from the 15th century at least it was very common to have a huge percentage of your army being professional forces with their own commanders. We used to mainly hire Scots and Germans.
(This is another way the 17th century and especially they 18th century Swedish army differed from a lot of Europe; due to the invention and implementation of the semi-professional conscript combined with the regular conscripts Sweden moved away from the mercenary army towards a 100% Swedish army (the only other country I can think of at the time that did this was Russia, but then again they have never really been short of men...)
Of course the size of the armies quickly grew after the Renaissance and an invading force that used to be tops 3000 men could by the 17th century suddenly be 10-15 or even 25 000 men. Well organized, too.

As for reserves, for a desperate repel of an invading force, a good 80% of the male population in any nation could probably be mustered (say all males over 16 and under 50).

Yet another thing to remember is that all armies marched on their stomachs and you could support a large force as long as was fighting in someone else's fields. Basically as long as your army had plenty of pillage and loot, you didn't have to actually pay them, or feed them...

[Storm Bringer]

Also, the Duration of the enlistment can radically affect how many warriors you can put into the field. if you only need them for a short, sharp campgain (for example, to defeat a specific invasion, or conquor a single city-state), then you can enlist quite a large part of the population. However, most of these short-termers in a pre-industrial nation will be farm hands, who can afford to be away from their fields for a month or two, but not for a year or two. t

This led to the seasonal campgaining that was common until the adoption of full time professional militarys, where the times when the armies could fight were dictated by the need to get the farmers back in the field before harvest, or else the nation would stave. It has been suggested that part of the Roman Army's Strength was that it was not tied to the seasons in the same way, and could attack when their foes army was scatted around his nation bringing in the harvest.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Avilian's point is especially important in medieval armies. In England, for instance, knights were obligated to provide two months of service per year in wartime (and a few weeks less in peace); being able to field all the knights in your kingdom for two months wasn't such a great way to wage wars, though, so the knights were allowed to pay scutage to the king, who would use this money to hire mercenaries for the duration of the entire campaign.

[Avilan the Grey]

Avilian's point is especially important in medieval armies. In England, for instance, knights were obligated to provide two months of service per year in wartime (and a few weeks less in peace); being able to field all the knights in your kingdom for two months wasn't such a great way to wage wars, though, so the knights were allowed to pay scutage to the king, who would use this money to hire mercenaries for the duration of the entire campaign.

This was, on the other hand, one of the reasons the Knight died out: The whole point of Chivalry and Honour is sort of misplaced when you let the King replace you with hired thugs...

And remember that there were entire nations that more or less specialized in hiring out forces. Scotland was a semi-example; I have no official data but it seems Scottish mercenary companies were literary as common as dandelions all over Europe. The Swiss pikemen was a more famous example.

[Tsotha-lanti]

If you refer to the Gallowglass/Gallóglaich, I think they were technically Viking/Scots from the Hebrides, but yeah, they were a pretty iconic type of medieval mercenary, along with the Irish and Scottish Kerns.

And yes, it certainly wore down the point of knighthood when scutage became common and nobles and knights just paid the fee so the king could hire foreign knights and mercenaries to do his fighting.

[Matthew]

The problem wasn't with the idea, which was that 5 of you pay 1 of you to be available for twelve months (which was similar to how the fyrd and pretty much any standing or part time army works), but with the difficulty of managing the feudal host to begin with. Scutage was just a patch for a system unsuited to fighting protracted foreign wars (mercenaries were employed in large numbers from the very beginning of the feudal idea, indeed a large proportion of the Norman host at Hastings was composed of men who owed no feudal service to William, but were turning up for the promise of loot, and possibly land).

Knighthood as an institution killed itself, because the requirements for "being" a knight were made more and more stringent to the point where many men were simply priced or bred out of the club. In the eleventh century any knight could make a knight, but by the fifteenth you had to have a pedigree going back several generations and a big pile of money.

[Tsotha-lanti]

There's that, too. It's my understanding that originally, any lord could grant a man knighthood (often for service in combat) or a fief and a higher title, but toward the end of the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance it became a royal privilege?

[Dervag]

The problem wasn't with the idea, which was that 5 of you pay 1 of you to be available for twelve months (which was similar to how the fyrd and pretty much any standing or part time army works), but with the difficulty of managing the feudal host to begin with. Scutage was just a patch for a system unsuited to fighting protracted foreign wars (mercenaries were employed in large numbers from the very beginning of the feudal idea, indeed a large proportion of the Norman host at Hastings was composed of men who owed no feudal service to William, but were turning up for the promise of loot, and possibly land).

Knighthood as an institution killed itself, because the requirements for "being" a knight were made more and more stringent to the point where many men were simply priced or bred out of the club. In the eleventh century any knight could make a knight, but by the fifteenth you had to have a pedigree going back several generations and a big pile of money.To expand on that:

"Knight" tends to be a euphemism for "warlord" (with some special curlicues added, I admit). And hereditary warlords don't work very well. War is one of the most meritocratic of all human activities; being the son of a good warlord doesn't make you a good warlord. It can help, because you'll get a good education, but it isn't a guarantee.

In a system where any tough man-at-arms with leadership skills could fight his way into knighthood, that didn't matter so much. The warrior oligarchy would renew itself, and each generation of knights would likely include all the best warriors because the best warriors became knights.

But when you start imposing pedigree requirements on knights (a natural result of nepotism among existing knights), the quality of the average knight as a warrior declines. Suddenly, there are plenty of commoners who have the skills to make a good warlord, but can't get official cognizance as knights... and they wind up outcompeting the knights at their own game.

[Matthew]

There's that, too. It's my understanding that originally, any lord could grant a man knighthood (often for service in combat) or a fief and a higher title, but toward the end of the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance it became a royal privilege?

As things progressed exactly who made you a knight became a point of honour (the more famous and powerful the better). I am not clear on exactly who could grant knighthood at what time, but I suspect there was never a universally accepted system. Much like anything else, you basically needed the power and authority to back up your social station. The church was definitely involved by the thirteenth century, and things got increasingly elaborate.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Dervag: Would it be untrue to say, though, that "hereditary military leadership" survived at least into the WWI period? Weren't officers usually upper-class or nobles - higher birth guaranteeing a higher position? As I understand it, the strategical failures of WWI bear out your point - the people in charge on most sides were not, in fact, very competent.

Edit: Was it not possible to literally buy a low command rank in the British army, at least, like up until the end of the 19th century?

[Fhaolan]

Dervag: Would it be untrue to say, though, that "hereditary military leadership" survived at least into the WWI period? Weren't officers usually upper-class or nobles - higher birth guaranteeing a higher position? As I understand it, the strategical failures of WWI bear out your point - the people in charge on most sides were not, in fact, very competent.

Edit: Was it not possible to literally buy a low command rank in the British army, at least, like up until the end of the 19th century?

Hereditary military leadership still exists in many countries, and there is some speculation that this is being done (illegally) in many others.

In the British Empire, the Purchase System lasted until the Cardwell Reform act of 1871. Before that you could buy ranks ranging form Cornet/Ensign up to Lt. Colonel.

There's a lot more details around the British Purchase System beyond just buying commission. Depending on the exact time period, the purchase could need to be renewed annually, purchase prices could be returned on retirement, purchased commissions may or may not be the *only* way to get a commission, and at one point it was expected for an officer on a purchased commision to be financially responsible for the equipment used by his troups.

[Eorran]

I guess my original question wasn't well thought-out. One of the things I've read about WWI (specifically the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge) was that despite breaking the German lines, very little came of the tactical victory. The main reason was nobody had a force capable of really exploiting a breakthrough; artillery was the defining tool of the time, and it was simply impossible to move artillery across no-man's land fast enough to pursue defenders and prevent regrouping.
(Yes, this is simplified, there were a lot of other issues, such as command and control, but this was one of the key issues as I understand it.)

From the descriptions I've read, I wondered if it was possible to move even modern mechanized forces across a WWI battlefield, with it's meters-deep mud, massive shell holes, and flooded, bombed-out terrain. There were probably dry spots, but the impression I get from WWI is mud hell.

So, can a modern tank / infantry carrier / APC cross something like that? It seems pretty doubtful to me. (I concede that groups like the Army Corps of Engineers have probably looked at this problem and devised some solutions, like ribbon bridges or some such.)

[Subotei]

Not sure if this goes here, but I was wondering a bit about historical armies and couldn't really think of a better place to ask. What % of the population would be considered typical or possible to be active military at any given time? How long could say, the Roman empire, sustain that x% of their total population as an active military force? I've been reading through some fantasy books and I've been trying to get a grasp on whether the maybe hundred thousand person army that nation Y is fielding is really reasonable for population Z for a decade long war.
My guess is that what era of technology the war is being fought in will be very important (with industry revolution and later technology implying less of a reliance on especially agricultural workers), as well as things like allied strength and supplies, but the only real information that I've been able to find are basic WWII statistics.

Interesting question - I read somewhere the Mongols (can't remember where I read this) fielded about 10% of their total male population as troops (thats not counting conquered subject peoples), and that was in the context of their society being very highly militarised and having fairly simple weapons etc. The more high tech the society the more support is required.

The UK today has around 250,000 armed forces personnel, and a population of 60,000,000 so military force is approx 0.4% of population.

So a quick range would be between 10% and 0.4%, depending on tech level. A fantasy setting would skew this, due to magic being available - fewer invalids, cheaper resouces etc.

[Subotei]

Q2 Military Demographics and Manpower


Somewhere between 1% and 10% is a typical estimate

I really should read all the posts before replying - what Matthew said.

I guess I'm just enjoying actually being able to get on the forum again!

[Dervag]

Dervag: Would it be untrue to say, though, that "hereditary military leadership" survived at least into the WWI period? Weren't officers usually upper-class or nobles - higher birth guaranteeing a higher position? As I understand it, the strategical failures of WWI bear out your point - the people in charge on most sides were not, in fact, very competent.This is partly true. But in many cases, they were competent... just not competent at the kind of thing they were suddenly called upon to do. Very few of the WWI commanders had experience handling armies of the size they had to deal with in the war, because no one had done such a thing for decades.

Especially on the French and British side of the line (the Germans had better officer training programs), most of the "experienced, competent" generals got their experience fighting colonial wars where a large army had something like ten thousand men and where the enemy almost invariably had a major disadvantage in organization and technology.

Moreover, while being a member of the elite class was a useful ticket to high command, it wasn't a requirement. You could be a carpenter's son and wind up commanding a regiment if you were good, and you really only had to be better than most of the aristocrats around you to qualify.


Edit: Was it not possible to literally buy a low command rank in the British army, at least, like up until the end of the 19th century?See here (http://www.cwreenactors.com/~crimean/purchsys.htm). Looks like the answer was "yesbut."

Yes, it was possible to buy a commission. But the people who did so generally had a military education and at least some battlefield experience. And the commander in chief had to approve it, and he probably wasn't going to approve a complete twit who would predictably blacken his name with a string of military failures. And the system became unpopular after the Crimean War and they started to phase it out in the 1860s and '70s.

So there were incompetent aristocratic generals in the Victorian British army, but there were also quite a few who worked their way up through the ranks, and even the aristocrats generally had to have some experience commanding on a small scale before they could hope to command on a large scale. Which helps, because it weeds out a lot of the utter idiots.
_______

I guess my original question wasn't well thought-out. One of the things I've read about WWI (specifically the Canadian victory at Vimy Ridge) was that despite breaking the German lines, very little came of the tactical victory. The main reason was nobody had a force capable of really exploiting a breakthrough; artillery was the defining tool of the time, and it was simply impossible to move artillery across no-man's land fast enough to pursue defenders and prevent regrouping.
(Yes, this is simplified, there were a lot of other issues, such as command and control, but this was one of the key issues as I understand it.)You're still right. Among other things, the cavalry (who should have been responsible for this) were often kept out of battle by their failure to cooperate with infantry and above all those insufferable, heretical, rude mechanicals in their fancy "tanks."

Tank-cavalry cooperation would have been a useful thing in the World War era, but nobody except the Cossacks ever tried very hard to make it happen, as far as I know.
________


From the descriptions I've read, I wondered if it was possible to move even modern mechanized forces across a WWI battlefield, with it's meters-deep mud, massive shell holes, and flooded, bombed-out terrain. There were probably dry spots, but the impression I get from WWI is mud hell.Certainly that was true in the worst parts of the front. However, a modern battlefield would hardly ever look like that; you only get that after months of artillery duels fought over landscapes that depend on drainage canals (which the artillery wrecks) to stay dry.


So, can a modern tank / infantry carrier / APC cross something like that? It seems pretty doubtful to me. (I concede that groups like the Army Corps of Engineers have probably looked at this problem and devised some solutions, like ribbon bridges or some such.)Remember, early tanks were designed for just such an emergency. Well designed track vehicles can actually have a lower ground pressure than a man on foot (dozens of times as much weight spread out over hundreds of times as much surface area), so if a guy in boots can cross it, a tracked vehicle really ought to be able to.

That isn't guaranteed, of course, but as long as the blasted zone isn't impossibly large a mechanized force should be able to cross it, I'd think.

[Subotei]

This is partly true. But in many cases, they were competent... just not competent at the kind of thing they were suddenly called upon to do. Very few of the WWI commanders had experience handling armies of the size they had to deal with in the war, because no one had done such a thing for decades.

This is true - the British were a sea power and not use to using large land forces - the British army was small but very professional by European standards. However the stalemate in the western front caused the creation of a vast conscript army. A consequence of this massive expansion was a dilution of quality. To a senior command used to working with professional soldiers, the fact that they were using conscripts must have influenced the battle plan for the Somme, the first major offensive with the new army - a massive bombardment coupled with a walk over no-mans land - they must've considered that anything more complex was beyond their training. Coupled with the politically motivated choice of time and location, it was pretty much a guaranteed disaster.

[Mike_G]

This is true - the British were a sea power and not use to using large land forces - the British army was small but very professional by European standards. However the stalemate in the western front caused the creation of a vast conscript army. A consequence of this massive expansion was a dilution of quality. To a senior command used to working with professional soldiers, the fact that they were using conscripts must have influenced the battle plan for the Somme, the first major offensive with the new army - a massive bombardment coupled with a walk over no-mans land - they must've considered that anything more complex was beyond their training. Coupled with the politically motivated choice of time and location, it was pretty much a guaranteed disaster.

No European nation fielded armies of that scale since the Napoleonic Wars.

Europe was fairly peaceful from Waterloo in 1815 to WWI almost exactly a century later. The big exceptions are the Wars of Italina and German unification, particularly the Franco Prussian War in 1870, but that, while incorporating much of the advanced tech that would dominate WWI, such as good repeating rifles, primitive machine guns, more modern artillery, and so on, it was a war of movement, not of static, complex defensive works, so it really didn't serve as much of a lesson to the generals on how to break treches 45 years later.

Most of Britain's combat experience after Waterloo came in colonial wars, always on a smaller scale, and usually against technologically inferior foes. Hardly a good grounding for facing a large, well armed, dug in German army.

In fact, they still managed to lose a few battles against spears and shields during that period.

[Dervag]

This is true - the British were a sea power and not use to using large land forces - the British army was small but very professional by European standards. However the stalemate in the western front caused the creation of a vast conscript army. A consequence of this massive expansion was a dilution of quality. To a senior command used to working with professional soldiers, the fact that they were using conscripts must have influenced the battle plan for the Somme, the first major offensive with the new army - a massive bombardment coupled with a walk over no-mans land - they must've considered that anything more complex was beyond their training. Coupled with the politically motivated choice of time and location, it was pretty much a guaranteed disaster.Yes, but the Somme wasn't the only place things went wrong by a long shot. The British high command didn't do much better handling professional troops (before the Somme) or veteran conscripts who likely had more combat experience than the old long-service professionals (after the Somme).

Moreover, an undue lack of confidence in their conscripts does not explain the failures of the French high command, which had been working with conscripts (at least in metropolitan France) for decades.

it wasn't just that the new army was diluted in quality; that factor can easily be overestimated. I think it was also that neither British nor French generals really understood what to do with an army of hundreds of thousands, or how the tactical situation changed when both armies could afford to place thousands of men on every single mile of the front.


In fact, they still managed to lose a few battles against spears and shields during that period.In fairness, most of the battles they lost against spears and shields were against opponents who also had guns to go with the spears and shields. Also, against enemies on the favorable side of frontier arithmetic- they were fighting in their living room against soldiers shipped in one by one at great expense, which left them badly outnumbered.

[Mike_G]

In fairness, most of the battles they lost against spears and shields were against opponents who also had guns to go with the spears and shields. Also, against enemies on the favorable side of frontier arithmetic- they were fighting in their living room against soldiers shipped in one by one at great expense, which left them badly outnumbered.

The relevant point was that the colonial wars in no way prepared the British for fighting a modern, European army in a strong defensive position.

They were almost universally fought against a technologically inferior foe, and seldom involved assaulting a fortified position. The colonial campaigns were always strategically offensive, but often tactically defensive. They would move an army into the enemy territory, but instead of marching on his capital and besieging it, would try to lure the native army into attacking the imperial forces, where the advanced tech of bolt action or breechloading rifles, maxim guns, quick firing artillery etc would decimate them.

This could work very well, as at Omdurman in 1898, where Kitchener destroyed the Mahdi's army, killing nearly 10,000 at a loss of about 50 men.

The British in the Zulu War killed a lot of attacking Zulu by using straight up defensive tactics, being overwhelmed at Isandlwana (sp?) but holding out at Rourke's Drift and Kambula, basically winning defensive victories in an offensive campaign. When the British could laager up and get teh Zulu to charge, they inflicted terrible casualties, and if they kept the Zulu back, they took few losses. When significant Zulu forces got to close combat, the British got a bloody nose. Zulu rifles inflicted some casualties, but Zulu Assegais were what won them a few battles.

I think Dien Bie Phu was a similar attempt at placing a force in a defensive position in enemy territory with the expectation that any attack would be a chance to destroy the Viet Minh in the open. While the Vietnamese did have a lot of artillery, so did the French, who also had armor and total air superiority. I think one has to give some credit to the sapping ability, courage and co-ordination of the Viet Minh infantry in actually taking the position.

In any case, Western forces in colonial campaigns don't seem to have faced challenges similar to the trenches of the Western Front, so even veteran officers commanding WWI amries would not have been prepared for what they faced.

[Stephen_E]

Thought this might be interesting to sword afficanados.

Hank Reinhardt's Book of the Sword by Hank Reinhardt - Baen Books

The 1st couple of chapters are available to sample.

Excert from the intro -
----------------------------
But this is just one of many such errors that have been perpetuated in modern times. Swords are shown slammed edge on against each other with no damage, smashed into concrete pillars, and cutting steel and stone with ease. I think my favorite myth is that of the Japanese katana that cut a machine gun barrel in half.

These have all led to a belief that swords can actually do these things! This book will be about how swords were actually used, with concrete, demonstrable evidence as well as historical anecdotal evidence presented. Drawing on information from grave excavations, illustrations of battle scenes, and many classical and medieval literary sources, I will discuss how contemporaries showed swords being used.

Further, I will draw on my own personal experience with devoted friends also interested in the use of the swords. I will show readers the things you do not do because they get you killed and things you do not do because it tears up the sword. And I will illustrate the best way to use many different types of swords.

Building on Oakeshott and others, this volume will add to the body of knowledge of the history of swords by illustrating not only the beauty of the form of the sword, but also their beauty of function.

—Hank Reinhardt

------------------------

Stephen E

[Avilan the Grey]

This is partly true. But in many cases, they were competent... just not competent at the kind of thing they were suddenly called upon to do. Very few of the WWI commanders had experience handling armies of the size they had to deal with in the war, because no one had done such a thing for decades.

...Moving back a century or three, the Swedish army was one of the first where you could go all the way from conscript to General although it was not common. In most European nations you had a "glass ceiling" that stopped you somewhere around Lieutenant. On the other hand most Swedish nobles at the time were actually competent enough to deserve the ranks they got (a noble joining the army started off at Lieutenant or better, AFAIR).
Our navy, on the other hand, was more or less a disaster compared to the nations we had dealings with (with the possible exception of Russia). The Danes used to make fun of the Swedish sailors and officers dubbing them "farmers dipped in salt water and thrown on a boat". Which unfortunately was very true. Very few high-ranking officers in the Swedish navy had ever sat their foot on a ship before getting their position, most being Generals or Kernels in the Army before being promoted to Admirals. The crew was just a little bit better.

[Avilan the Grey]

The relevant point was that the colonial wars in no way prepared the British for fighting a modern, European army in a strong defensive position.

...See Black Adder Goes Forth... :smalltongue:

[Dervag]

The relevant point was that the colonial wars in no way prepared the British for fighting a modern, European army in a strong defensive position.You're right.

Though it might have if they'd paid attention to what happened when the enemy had good weapons, or noticed "hey, twenty thousand highly motivated spearmen generally lose to a few thousand entrenched riflemen when we're the riflemen. In a bayonet charge, a soldier is effectively a spearman. Do we really have so much more élan than the "howling savages" that we can succeed where they failed without even taking heavy losses?"
_______


The British in the Zulu War killed a lot of attacking Zulu by using straight up defensive tactics, being overwhelmed at Isandlwana (sp?) but holding out at Rourke's Drift and Kambula, basically winning defensive victories in an offensive campaign. When the British could laager up and get teh Zulu to charge, they inflicted terrible casualties, and if they kept the Zulu back, they took few losses. When significant Zulu forces got to close combat, the British got a bloody nose. Zulu rifles inflicted some casualties, but Zulu Assegais were what won them a few battles.I am of the opinion in that the Zulu muskets and rifles had a lot to do with why the Zulu spearmen were able to get into range in the first place; it's always harder to blast the bejeezus out of an attacking enemy when their friends are giving them covering fire. But I suppose I could be wrong about this.
_______


In any case, Western forces in colonial campaigns don't seem to have faced challenges similar to the trenches of the Western Front, so even veteran officers commanding WWI amries would not have been prepared for what they faced.Which was part of my point, as I believe I mentioned already. It wasn't just that they were aristocratic twits; many of them were not. But they didn't have the experience of handling large armies with the full arsenal of modern European weapons at their disposal in nigh-unlimited quantities, and that was what they really needed.
_______


...Moving back a century or three, the Swedish army was one of the first where you could go all the way from conscript to General although it was not common. In most European nations you had a "glass ceiling" that stopped you somewhere around Lieutenant. On the other hand most Swedish nobles at the time were actually competent enough to deserve the ranks they got (a noble joining the army started off at Lieutenant or better, AFAIR).This was during the Thirty Years' War and its aftermath, a time when the knightly classes was finally choking itself off as a martial class and reinventing itself as the aristocracy we've come to know since then.

By the Victorian era, rising through the ranks was a more common feature of European armies. Napoleon, especially, was famous for promoting through the ranks. The expression "a field marshal's baton in every knapsack" came about for a reason.

After watching how guys like Bernadotte turned out in command of French armies, the rest of Europe started to try the same thing, if they hadn't already. Aristocrats still had a fast-track to high command, but the glass ceiling definitely had holes in it if you were capable enough.

[Avilan the Grey]

This was during the Thirty Years' War and its aftermath, a time when the knightly classes was finally choking itself off as a martial class and reinventing itself as the aristocracy we've come to know since then.

By the Victorian era, rising through the ranks was a more common feature of European armies. Napoleon, especially, was famous for promoting through the ranks. The expression "a field marshal's baton in every knapsack" came about for a reason.

After watching how guys like Bernadotte turned out in command of French armies, the rest of Europe started to try the same thing, if they hadn't already. Aristocrats still had a fast-track to high command, but the glass ceiling definitely had holes in it if you were capable enough.

I am aware that the fact that we were one of the first had very little to do with some kind of ideals of equal opportunity and more because of the fact that we were, and still is, a very sparsely populated nation. But yes, the "knight" was nowhere around (except if you count the currasiers (spelling?), the heavy armed Spanish cavalry) but instead all men of noble birth did get forced military training from the age of 6 or thereabout.

Bernadotte was quite good. He was a decent king, too... OT I am genuinely looking forward to the reign of Queen Victoria I.

Karl XII was also famous for promoting through the ranks, but then he used the whole "I am just like you guys" shtick to strengthen the moral in the army.
(He did have an elite regiment where all ranks were shifted down a few pegs; Lieutenants serving there were treated as privates (while in that regiment) etc. Not sure what the deal was, except maybe collecting the best and brightest in one spot).

[MickJay]

That bit about marshall's baton in every soldier's knapsack originated as a piece of propaganda (which, as a whole, was probably the single best in the world at the time). Those not-so-funny British caricatures of Napoleon? Hardly worth mentioning :smalltongue:

Concerning Bernadotte, he probably isn't a good example - how many armies would want to have very good officers who, after being given very prestigious and influential position, suddenly change front when things start to get ugly for their (former) superiors? :smallwink: Sure, he was working for the good of his new country, but that's not what he was originally supposed to do. :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

Thought this might be interesting to sword afficanados.

Hank Reinhardt's Book of the Sword by Hank Reinhardt - Baen Books

The 1st couple of chapters are available to sample.

Excert from the intro -
----------------------------
But this is just one of many such errors that have been perpetuated in modern times. Swords are shown slammed edge on against each other with no damage, smashed into concrete pillars, and cutting steel and stone with ease. I think my favorite myth is that of the Japanese katana that cut a machine gun barrel in half.

These have all led to a belief that swords can actually do these things! This book will be about how swords were actually used, with concrete, demonstrable evidence as well as historical anecdotal evidence presented. Drawing on information from grave excavations, illustrations of battle scenes, and many classical and medieval literary sources, I will discuss how contemporaries showed swords being used.

Further, I will draw on my own personal experience with devoted friends also interested in the use of the swords. I will show readers the things you do not do because they get you killed and things you do not do because it tears up the sword. And I will illustrate the best way to use many different types of swords.

Building on Oakeshott and others, this volume will add to the body of knowledge of the history of swords by illustrating not only the beauty of the form of the sword, but also their beauty of function.

—Hank Reinhardt

------------------------

Stephen E

Sounds like a good read, indeed!

[Avilan the Grey]

Concerning Bernadotte, he probably isn't a good example - how many armies would want to have very good officers who, after being given very prestigious and influential position, suddenly change front when things start to get ugly for their (former) superiors? :smallwink: Sure, he was working for the good of his new country, but that's not what he was originally supposed to do. :smallbiggrin:

To be fair, Bernadotte and Napoleon was rivals, not only politically but for the same woman. It wasn't that Bernadotte sold out France just because.

[Mike_G]

You're right.

Though it might have if they'd paid attention to what happened when the enemy had good weapons, or noticed "hey, twenty thousand highly motivated spearmen generally lose to a few thousand entrenched riflemen when we're the riflemen. In a bayonet charge, a soldier is effectively a spearman. Do we really have so much more élan than the "howling savages" that we can succeed where they failed without even taking heavy losses?"


Agreed.
_______



I am of the opinion in that the Zulu muskets and rifles had a lot to do with why the Zulu spearmen were able to get into range in the first place; it's always harder to blast the bejeezus out of an attacking enemy when their friends are giving them covering fire. But I suppose I could be wrong about this.


I think you overstate the effectiveness of Zulu firearms.

In the battles where the main Zulu forces didn't make contact (Ulundi, Eshowe et al.) British losses from ranged weapons were negligible, (40 some odd at Eshowe and 10 at Ulundi) while Zulu losses were over 1000 killed at each. When the Zulu got withing stabbing range, then British losses hit three and four digits.

Zulu riflemen were an annoyance, not an effective threat, and seldom availible in numbers necessary to give real covering fire.

[Dervag]

That bit about marshall's baton in every soldier's knapsack originated as a piece of propaganda (which, as a whole, was probably the single best in the world at the time).Yesbut.

Like most good propaganda, it worked because it wasn't an outright lie. It's a simple reality that Napoleon (and the French Revolution in general) did make it possible for non-aristocrats, and men so low-ranking in the old aristocracy that they were hardly nobility at all, to achieve high military rank in the new French army. And the results were striking: they proved quite capable of beating most of their aristocratic enemies like so many drums.

Did that mean every random soldier would become a general? Obviously not. But it did mean that they could hope for it, and that if one of them had the talent to make it happen, they had a decent chance of success. They weren't guaranteed to get flattened against a glass ceiling as they tried to rise through the ranks.

The French Revolution left a lot to be desired, but it undeniably did begin the process of breaking the grip of the old, medieval-vintage European aristocracy on military and economic power. It at least opened the possibility that this grip might come to an end.
_______


Concerning Bernadotte, he probably isn't a good example - how many armies would want to have very good officers who, after being given very prestigious and influential position, suddenly change front when things start to get ugly for their (former) superiors? :smallwink: Sure, he was working for the good of his new country, but that's not what he was originally supposed to do. :smallbiggrin:I don't think you understood my example. My point was that Bernadotte was more or less a commoner, and that he achieved high military rank, and did a good job at it. The fact that he later became a king of a foreign country and turned on France does not mean that he was ineffective or incompetent.

He and men like him proved that having a pedigree dating back to the Crusades was not necessary to be a competent general, and that armies would be wise to allow people without the pedigree to become generals.

[MickJay]

Propaganda - of course it had basis in reality; interestingly, some of the most notable promotions went to people who simply went in front of their troops, leading by example (and many often got killed relatively young) - bravery, courage and lack of self preservation instinct got rewarded more often than common sense and tactical thinking, but that's how the wars were fought at the time. Biographies of Napoleon's marshals give lots of examples of this (which doesn't mean good strategists were left out, either). Memoirs from the period show just how many of Napoleon's highest officers came from the lower classes - artistocrats would often ridicule them behind their backs for their improper behaviour. :smallbiggrin:

Concerning Bernadotte, I'm simply saying that while he's probably the best example of a successful non-aristocratic (starting point) career, the way he acted later on would probably discourage similar promotions in places where belonging to an old family still meant more than personal merits ("people who are too clever and don't belong to our group can't be trusted too much").

[Subotei]

Yes, but the Somme wasn't the only place things went wrong by a long shot. The British high command didn't do much better handling professional troops (before the Somme) or veteran conscripts who likely had more combat experience than the old long-service professionals (after the Somme).

True - I was not trying to summarize the entire campaign. They did make a fatal error in trying to reinforce failure again and again, though whether this was mainly due to military stupidity or political pressures is a question. However the British did innovate with many techniques and the one which was finally to cause the breakthrough - tanks, so I don't think they can be dismissed as completely useless.


Moreover, an undue lack of confidence in their conscripts does not explain the failures of the French high command, which had been working with conscripts (at least in metropolitan France) for decades.

The French problems are not something I've studied in any detail so I bow to your wisdom - please explain their failings.


it wasn't just that the new army was diluted in quality; that factor can easily be overestimated. I think it was also that neither British nor French generals really understood what to do with an army of hundreds of thousands, or how the tactical situation changed when both armies could afford to place thousands of men on every single mile of the front.

I think the quality is a factor, but I wasn't disagreing with your point about quantity. Also its not only French and British armies that were mishandled. The German Schlieffen Plan was fatally flawed in its handling of the German advance, making little provision for likely British intervention or the fact that the Belgian road network couldn't actually accomodate the planned numbers of advancing German troops. Once it failed the Germans were forced to the defensive.


Most of Britain's combat experience after Waterloo came in colonial wars, always on a smaller scale, and usually against technologically inferior foes. Hardly a good grounding for facing a large, well armed, dug in German army.

This is true of all the major powers involved I believe, Franco-prussian war being a bit too early for most of the WWI combatants. No one had fought that type of battle at that scale before. No one from the high commands really expected the trench stalemate, as they were still expecting a war similar to the 1870 conflict. Improvements in artillery had made fixed fortifications (forts etc) virtually obsolete as they could be reduced piecemeal by heavy artillery, so they didn't expect them to play any part - it would be a war of movement. However no one seemed to realise improvised trenches covered by accurate rifle and machinegun fire would pose a serious issue to movement.

The British had actually experienced such modern tactics in the 2nd Boer War (eg the Modder River), which demonstrated the power of dug in riflemen, and the ability to beat them via infiltration tactics. However they seem not to have learned any lessons, possibly because, as a 'colonial' war, they thought it atypical...

[Dervag]

True - I was not trying to summarize the entire campaign. They did make a fatal error in trying to reinforce failure again and again, though whether this was mainly due to military stupidity or political pressures is a question. However the British did innovate with many techniques and the one which was finally to cause the breakthrough - tanks, so I don't think they can be dismissed as completely useless.But some of the most useful techniques (including the tanks) had almost nothing to do with the senior army establishment; tank development had to go through the navy, for crying out loud!

It's not that "the British" were useless, it's that the Allied generals who had earned promotions to high rank before the war had no idea how to prosecute the war. They weren't necessarily stupid, but the conceptual framework they were using was so messed up that they might as well have been.


The French problems are not something I've studied in any detail so I bow to your wisdom - please explain their failings.We can look at the slaughter that resulted from the Battle of the Frontiers, when the main French force barged into Alsace-Lorraine and ran up against two German armies under Crown Prince Rupprecht (this was before the trench war began, in 1914).

During the trench wars, we have the examples of Second Champagne, Second and Third Artois (the French attack in the Artois offensive was associated with the British attack at Loos, and was about as great a horrible failure). Or if we want to look at the late war period, there's the Nivelle Offensive that broke the back of the French army's morale and led to the mutinies of 1917.
______


I think the quality is a factor, but I wasn't disagreing with your point about quantity. Also its not only French and British armies that were mishandled. The German Schlieffen Plan was fatally flawed in its handling of the German advance, making little provision for likely British intervention or the fact that the Belgian road network couldn't actually accomodate the planned numbers of advancing German troops. Once it failed the Germans were forced to the defensive.Yesbut.

I'm not saying that one side had flawed plans and the other didn't. I'm saying that the Germans did a somewhat better job of training their commanders to control troops in mass and in Europe. The British, for extremely good reasons, had almost no such training before the war. The French had the training to an extent, but didn't even do as good a job as the partial success achieved by the Germans.

Contrast the result of the Schlieffen Plan (which failed to take Paris but at least came close enough to present a credible threat) to the result of France's prewar Plan XVII (which was an utter failure and achieved no part of its objective).

[firechicago]

I think the quality is a factor, but I wasn't disagreing with your point about quantity. Also its not only French and British armies that were mishandled. The German Schlieffen Plan was fatally flawed in its handling of the German advance, making little provision for likely British intervention or the fact that the Belgian road network couldn't actually accomodate the planned numbers of advancing German troops. Once it failed the Germans were forced to the defensive.

I've actually seen it argued that the Schlieffen plan had a decent chance of working, it was the Von Moltke plan that failed so miserably.

To clarify: Schlieffen's original plan, written in 1905, envisioned 59 divisions sweeping through Belgium and Holland, while 9 divisions conducted a holding action in Alsace and Lorraine and 10 divisions held off the Russians. Helmuth von Moltke, Schlieffen's successor, was nervous about leaving Germany exposed. So he pulled two corps from the right wing into the east and used newly formed units to reinforce the left flank. Most tellingly he decided that in the event of a longer war, sea trade with neutrals through a neutral Holland would be essential to maintaining the German economy. He was grossly mistaken, both in the amount of materiel that would make it to Germany through Holland, and in the fragility of the German wartime economy, which only began to break down after several years of war.

It's easy in hindsight to come up with reasons why a long, bloody war was inevitable in 1914. But I think that if Schlieffen's successor had been as willing to stake the German Empire's fate on a single roll of the dice as Schlieffen was, then the whole thing could have easily been over in less than a year, one way or another.



This is true of all the major powers involved I believe, Franco-prussian war being a bit too early for most of the WWI combatants. No one had fought that type of battle at that scale before. No one from the high commands really expected the trench stalemate, as they were still expecting a war similar to the 1870 conflict. Improvements in artillery had made fixed fortifications (forts etc) virtually obsolete as they could be reduced piecemeal by heavy artillery, so they didn't expect them to play any part - it would be a war of movement. However no one seemed to realise improvised trenches covered by accurate rifle and machinegun fire would pose a serious issue to movement.

The British had actually experienced such modern tactics in the 2nd Boer War (eg the Modder River), which demonstrated the power of dug in riflemen, and the ability to beat them via infiltration tactics. However they seem not to have learned any lessons, possibly because, as a 'colonial' war, they thought it atypical...

I don't think that it was so much that the British Army dismissed the lessons of wars just because they were "Colonial." I think it's more that it's easy to pick out the similarities between the disparate situations in hindsight. Drawing conclusions about a conflict involving many millions of soldiers over a couple hundred miles of front from a conflict involving some thousands or tens of thousands over hundreds of miles of open terrain without a clearly defined front is a tricky business. It's a bit like asking someone to predict the outcome of a large-scale air war between the U.S. and China based on nothing but observations of the U.S. bombing campaigns in Kosovo and the First Gulf War.

This is what bugs me about statements that the European militaries in 1914 "hadn't learned anything from XYZ wars."* The European militaries learned a great deal from the Franco Prussian war and the other wars of the 19th century. The lessons they learned fundamentally shaped the way the Great War was fought. (E.g. the obsession with mobilization timelines which helped start the war in the first place was a direct result of watching the humiliating defeat of a nation which failed to mobilize quickly enough in 1870.)

The fact that 20-20 hindsight lets us say that those lessons were woefully incomplete should be a cautionary tale for the future, not a source of smug satisfaction in our superiority over those old fuddy-duddies.


*Not that you're saying that, but it is an argument I see too often for my tastes.

[Matthew]

I do not know if those of you in the US can watch and enjoy these via Joost, but all five episodes are currently available to watch: Weapons that made Britain (http://www.joost.com/129ecd3/t/Weapons-That-Made-Britain-105-The-Shield#id=129eccz). Great stuff, much better than the typical history channel production.

[Swordguy]

I do not know if those of you in the US can watch and enjoy these via Joost, but all five episodes are currently available to watch: Weapons that made Britain (http://www.joost.com/129ecd3/t/Weapons-That-Made-Britain-105-The-Shield#id=129eccz). Great stuff, much better than the typical history channel production.

We evidently can't - in the MidWest, anyway ("Video not available in your region"). Still, it's something that goes on my list to track down...if you like it, it's probably good. :smallwink:

[Avilan the Grey]

But some of the most useful techniques (including the tanks) had almost nothing to do with the senior army establishment; tank development had to go through the navy, for crying out loud!

It's not that "the British" were useless, it's that the Allied generals who had earned promotions to high rank before the war had no idea how to prosecute the war. They weren't necessarily stupid, but the conceptual framework they were using was so messed up that they might as well have been.

We can look at the slaughter that resulted from the Battle of the Frontiers, when the main French force barged into Alsace-Lorraine and ran up against two German armies under Crown Prince Rupprecht (this was before the trench war began, in 1914).

During the trench wars, we have the examples of Second Champagne, Second and Third Artois (the French attack in the Artois offensive was associated with the British attack at Loos, and was about as great a horrible failure). Or if we want to look at the late war period, there's the Nivelle Offensive that broke the back of the French army's morale and led to the mutinies of 1917.

The French at least knew how to use their artillery. And I mean in the technical term, with spotters, aim etc.

Before the battle of the Somme, how came the British were so convinced that their bombardment would kill the Germans before the attack if they themselves lived in similar trenches and knew, roughly, how effective German guns were on their positions? (It can't be that the Germans were that much better at digging in?)

[Philistine]

You might try Veoh (http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/Weapons+that+made+Britain), or the Google (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Weapons+that+made+Britain&hl=en&emb=0#).

[Dervag]

The French at least knew how to use their artillery. And I mean in the technical term, with spotters, aim etc.

Before the battle of the Somme, how came the British were so convinced that their bombardment would kill the Germans before the attack if they themselves lived in similar trenches and knew, roughly, how effective German guns were on their positions? (It can't be that the Germans were that much better at digging in?)To some extent, the Germans were that much better at digging in. They had very good underground bunkers to shelter in, and the British heavy artillery's HE shells (the only stuff that could hope to collapse the bunkers instead of just rearranging the dirt on top of them) was unreliable.

The British hadn't been forced to deal with the sheer scale of artillery attack that they were throwing on the Somme, so they had no yardstick to judge precisely what it would be capable of. They had spotters, ballistics tables, and more or less the same tools of the trade as the French. They had plenty of modern guns and ammunition. The problem wasn't simply incompetent artillery support; no army had the doctrine to deal with what the British had to face, because there had never been anything like it in the world before.

Keep in mind that the Somme bombardment was of a scale unthinkable just a year earlier. The total amount of explosives dropped on the German lines was best measured in kilotons. It wasn't all that unreasonable of the British to expect that concentrating that much explosive into such a small section of front would have some effect on the strength of the enemy defenses.

[Avilan the Grey]

To some extent, the Germans were that much better at digging in. They had very good underground bunkers to shelter in, and the British heavy artillery's HE shells (the only stuff that could hope to collapse the bunkers instead of just rearranging the dirt on top of them) was unreliable.

The British hadn't been forced to deal with the sheer scale of artillery attack that they were throwing on the Somme, so they had no yardstick to judge precisely what it would be capable of. They had spotters, ballistics tables, and more or less the same tools of the trade as the French. They had plenty of modern guns and ammunition. The problem wasn't simply incompetent artillery support; no army had the doctrine to deal with what the British had to face, because there had never been anything like it in the world before.

Keep in mind that the Somme bombardment was of a scale unthinkable just a year earlier. The total amount of explosives dropped on the German lines was best measured in kilotons. It wasn't all that unreasonable of the British to expect that concentrating that much explosive into such a small section of front would have some effect on the strength of the enemy defenses.

Thank you.

I didn't mean that the British had no clue how to use their guns, but what I have heard the French simply had much more experience at using them efficiently.
A good point too about the sheer scale never being seen before.

[Rasilak]

Veoh (http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/Weapons+that+made+Britain)
Phew, one of the worst programs i've ever used. Was a royal PITA to get it installed (and I assume it will be even harder to get rid of it). Too bad that there is no real alternative (except uTorrent and the like).

[Matthew]

Phew, one of the worst programs i've ever used. Was a royal PITA to get it installed (and I assume it will be even harder to get rid of it). Too bad that there is no real alternative (except uTorrent and the like).

Interesting! So that lets you watch region free?

[Rasilak]

From what it looks like, Veoh uses Torrents for distribution anyway (that's probably the only sane way to do it for this volume of data). But most torrent clients don't behave like a trojan. (and I never said that it would be legal to get the videos from TPB, I just said that it's much less hassle).
But BTT:
The videos are actually quite interesting (although most of it is pretty basic stuff, it's good to have everything in one source). I find the concept of dueling shields quite interesting, but I can't imagine that they would be of any use against "real" weapons (probably that's why they've never been used in war).

[Matthew]

From what it looks like, Veoh uses Torrents for distribution anyway (that's probably the only sane way to do it for this volume of data). But most torrent clients don't behave like a trojan. (and I never said that it would be legal to get the videos from TPB, I just said that it's much less hassle)

Understood; probably just as easy to install IP masking software, but interesting!

[Construct]

EDIT: Thinking about it, you would be better off using an arc blade than a ring. It would end up like this ------). That would give you the ability to hook and to do pick-like strikes with the points on the sides. It would have to be sharpened to a very high level for thrusting to be effective, however, and due to lack of penetrative ability with that thrust it would be ineffective against any kind of armour. More of a slashing weapon.The chakram-on-a-pole corresponds to the Golden Coin Shovel and the double-pick-on-a-pole to the Heaven Tangled Shovel. Pictures here (http://books.google.com/books?id=SBENHIwJshMC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=golden+coin+shovel&source=bl&ots=9mIgvVFRtp&sig=seVHoYZRXOHgYJY1_uUZxDVQDZ4&hl=en&ei=lUkeSqKKEZeTkAWT2MSPDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7). The former is an evolution (devolution?) of the more familiar Monk's Spade - one of the duties of a Buddhist priest was burying the dead so it made sense to base a self-defense weapon around that form - and is a weapon of the martial arts. According to the link the latter was an actual martial weapon of Ming footsoldiers and it certainly would seem to be effective in hooking (anti-cavalry) and piercing (anti-infantry).

[Meridian]

Quick question; how much of his agility and dexterity would a trained-from birth knight in the medieval ages retain, if he was wearing a full-plate armour? I've seen and heard of people doing barrel rolls and wheelbarrows while wearing armour, but my friends don't believe you could even get up if you were dropped on your knees/stomach.

This arguement was born when my Northener lord-knight, who was an experienced, feared warrior and joustmaster, wanted to evade a blow from his opponent in a festival's mass battle event by diving to the ground and getting up behind him. The enemy had a heavy maul, so it would have been likely I'd been able to hit him before he could get his weapon up again. I was armed with a short word.

Possible or not? System was Praedor, but that's not going to matter, I just want to know if it's possible to do.

[Spiryt]

Your friends don't know what they're talking about.

Exact answer cannot be granted, all depends on quality of armor (particulary how well it fits the user), it's exact weight, wearer strenght and training et cetera.

But generally - fighter in plate armor retained enough dexterity to be effective at all forms of fighting. Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=related) and video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg&feature=related).

Situation you are describing is, however, rather ridiculous, and not really plausible.

Firstly, if this is festivals battle, why are they using silly heavy mauls? They want to kill each other ?
Secondly, no one would ever use weapon that's so heavy that "it takes time to get it up again".

And even if weapon is ridculously heavy it doesn't switch the brain and body off... Why would anyone allow opponent to dive between his legs behind him (that's how i understand situation described by you)?

[Meridian]

Your friends don't know what they're talking about.

Exact answer cannot be granted, all depends on quality of armor (particulary how well it fits the user), it's exact weight, wearer strenght and training et cetera.

But generally - fighter in plate armor retained enough dexterity to be effective at all forms of fighting. Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMuNXWFPewg&feature=related) and video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm11yAXeegg&feature=related).

Situation you are describing is, however, rather ridiculous, and not really plausible.

Firstly, if this is festivals battle, why are they using silly heavy mauls? They want to kill each other ?
Secondly, no one would ever use weapon that's so heavy that "it takes time to get it up again".

And even if weapon is ridculously heavy it doesn't switch the brain and body off... Why would anyone allow opponent to dive between his legs behind him (that's how i understand situation described by you)?

No, no, I wanted to dive to the left, passing him by, not between his legs, that'd be just silly. What I wanted to do was to evade the blow, and the current situation didn't allow me to jump simply back.

About my opponent using a maul in the festivals; well, our DM doesn't really know that much about medieval ages, having mostly read fantasy literature and watched anime. But hey, he tries :)

[Spiryt]

No, no, I wanted to dive to the left, passing him by, not between his legs, that'd be just silly. What I wanted to do was to evade the blow, and the current situation didn't allow me to jump simply back.

About my opponent using a maul in the festivals; well, our DM doesn't really know that much about medieval ages, having mostly read fantasy literature and watched anime. But hey, he tries :)

Well, I guess that it indeed can be done. Why not?

The question is what for? It would be rather hard, and the probability of getting hit while diving high.

Again, I don't know nothing about your system, so I don't know what options and bonuses are connected with such activities.

[Meridian]

Well, I guess that it indeed can be done. Why not?

The question is what for? It would be rather hard, and the probability of getting hit while diving high.

Again, I don't know nothing about your system, so I don't know what options and bonuses are connected with such activities.

Well, I had lost my main weapon earlier, and stepping back wasn't an option, and my foe was "skilled enough to change the hit's direction if you attempted to dodge to the sides", (it was a vertical overhead swing) so my only option was trying to get behind him. My usual tactic with the character would be to attempt to tackle him or initiate a grapple, but he was so much bigger than me, so I figured the best option was to attempt to action roll behind him.

Makes no sense, I know, but that was the situation the DM put me in and I tried to cope with it :smallbiggrin:

[Spiryt]

My usual tactic with the character would be to attempt to tackle him or initiate a grapple, but he was so much bigger than me, so I figured the best option was to attempt to action roll behind him.


Well, even if he's bigger, at least you have suitable grappling weapon in hand... Is he wearing armor too? And does he have some kind of knife too?

And out of curiosity, what kind of system you're using? It seems to allow a lot of options.

[Meridian]

Well, even if he's bigger, at least you have suitable grappling weapon in hand... Is he wearing armor too? And does he have some kind of knife too?

And out of curiosity, what kind of system you're using? It seems to allow a lot of options.

We're using Praedor. I'm afraid, however, that it's only available in Finnish. It is, indeed quite flexible system. We use a lot of storytelling and the rolls are very much affected how and where you attempt to hit. Also, there are no hitpoint, and a hit will have effect according to damage (8 damage is enough to shatter bones and render an arm useless, one damage is a shallow scratch..) so basically, one aimed hit can decapitate you instantly if you fail to block, dodge or your armour doesn't save you.

He had armour on him, and a small back-up sword, but no other equipment. Didn't want to grapple him because of my character's average Strenght score (14) versus his high-ish Str (judging from a duel we had earlier).

[Hurlbut]

Well, even if he's bigger, at least you have suitable grappling weapon in hand... Is he wearing armor too? And does he have some kind of knife too?

And out of curiosity, what kind of system you're using? It seems to allow a lot of options.More to the point, can you not stop the blow (it is overhead right?) by physically blocking his arms before the mace come down?

[Fhaolan]

Quick question; how much of his agility and dexterity would a trained-from birth knight in the medieval ages retain, if he was wearing a full-plate armour? I've seen and heard of people doing barrel rolls and wheelbarrows while wearing armour, but my friends don't believe you could even get up if you were dropped on your knees/stomach.

This arguement was born when my Northener lord-knight, who was an experienced, feared warrior and joustmaster, wanted to evade a blow from his opponent in a festival's mass battle event by diving to the ground and getting up behind him. The enemy had a heavy maul, so it would have been likely I'd been able to hit him before he could get his weapon up again. I was armed with a short word.

Possible or not? System was Praedor, but that's not going to matter, I just want to know if it's possible to do.

Barrelrolls and wheelbarrows in full plate: Yes, providing the full plate harness was correctly made and properly sized for you. There are videos from demos done at the Tower of London of a man in full plate doing gymnastics.

Full plate is quite a bit lighter than most people think, as modern reproduction armour is usually made incorrectly out of untempered sheet steel rather than tempered steel with each peice of different, and varying, thickness depending on the precise level of protection needed for that point. Also, modern reproduction armour's individual pieces are usually sized incorrectly, which leads to issues with being unable to raise your arms above your head, etc. These issues do not exist with well-made full plate.

Even with poorly-fitted full plate, you can do limited gymnastics, as I was able to do so in my badly-sized armour. Getting up while on your stomach is actually easier than getting up from your back in badly-fitted plate, as you can use your arms for leverage.

If your armour is *damaged* in some way, as from being hit by a mace or other impact weapon, your moments get more limited, in the same way as if the armour is badly fitted.

There were such things as two-handed maces and hammers, used in duels and tourneys, but they were not as heavy as a modern sledgehammer. The largest two-handed mace I have in my collection is 5lbs 8oz total and 45" long. The heaviest polearm I have is a standard poleaxe at 6lbs 12oz and 80" long. I am aware of bardiche in another person's collection that weighs just under 10lbs, but I'm not sure of the exact weight. That bardiche is the heaviest two-handed weapon I have personally encountered that was historically accurate and was intended for actual use.

Back to the scene described. The shortsword (which would likely be a hanger, but shortsword is as close a description as any. :smallbiggrin:) would be almost useless against a heavily armoured opponent. The blade is to big to slide beneath the plates to strike at tendons and arteries, but also too light to attack the joint plates. You would be better off with a misericorde (a kind of large stilleto) that can punch through the gaps between plates, or a mace/one-handed axe, which can crack or warp armour plates. Small swords like hangers were used against lightly armoured opponents, and if you are a heavy-armour wearing person, it would usually only be carried in non-battle situations.

[Tsotha-lanti]

The real crux of full harness agility, to my understanding, is that it's strapped to each part of your body individually, spreading the weight (40 or even 60 lbs., I think?) very evenly. Think of hiking backpacks - they tend to have straps that go around the waist or even across the chest, in order to distribute the weight. A properly fitted and secured harness is distributed all over, which means it's much less cumbersome than it sounds. Lifting 40 lbs. of steel with your hands can be a pain - lifting it with your whole, entire body is much less so.

This is also why mail hauberks could be something of a pain; except for a belt at the waist, your shoulders support the whole weight, so even if it's only 20 or 30 lbs. it feels like a lot.

Also, the ability of a shortsword to wound an armored knight is really dependent on the type of armor, I'd think? A lot of later, gothic harnesses would apparently omit protection under the arm or on the ass and backs of the thighs, since you were expected to be seated on a horse. Of course, you'd have to be a bit of a fool to enter a melee on foot wearing armor with weaknesses like that...


Also, yay Praedor! Hiltunen is my favorite Elric and Conan artist, and I've got the Praedor comic somewhere around here (collected, plus the latter half of the Magus magazines it ran in)...

[Meridian]

You've given me a lot of knowledge about armour and how it works. I'm sure that using this newfound knowledge and those two videos Spiryt linked, I can assure my game group of the fact that armour isn't as cumbersome as they think!

[Spiryt]

Another video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kKLgSTkCEo) for good measure.

[Thane of Fife]

On the subject of plate armor, how protective is it? Would it be possible to, for example, thrust a sword into the chest of someone wearing it, or is that not going to happen?

(Specifically, I'm thinking of late-ish Hundred Years War armor).

[Tsotha-lanti]

On the subject of plate armor, how protective is it? Would it be possible to, for example, thrust a sword into the chest of someone wearing it, or is that not going to happen?

(Specifically, I'm thinking of late-ish Hundred Years War armor).

Definitely not (and you wouldn't usually thrust with swords used in war in periods when full harness was common). Spears neither, probably (unless you were making a mounted charge; that's a lot of force in one point). Axes may have been able to pierce or deform plates sufficiently to injure someone, and maces, warhammers, and the like could definitely deform it and possibly puncture helmets. Fighting with swords in harness involved half-swording, where you used the longsword like a spear to thrust the tip into a joint or even through the visor; morte-striking, where you use the hilt as a bludgeon to strike the helmet and stun the opponent; and grappling, where you tried to immobilize the enemy or put him on the ground, then stab him with a thin dagger like a misericorde or poniard, and used the sword as a lever. Many polearms were developed with the purpose of pulling knights off horses, rather than to injuring them outright (although falling off a horse violently was likely to be dangerous regardless of armor).

It's unclear how well arrows and bolts - bodkins, specifically - could penetrate the plates. I've seen a lot of debate but haven't been convinced either way. AFAIK, you were generally "safe" from the hails of missiles (usually fired at long ranges, in arcing shots in the case of bows) unless one happened to strike a spot without a plate.

[MickJay]

If I found myself disarmed, except for a dagger or a knife, and was forced to fight a fully armored opponent, what would be the best way to attack, if I were to ignore the opponent's weapon and concentrate on wounding him? Trying to stab from above in an attempt to find weak spot near the neck, aiming at some other possible weak spots? Armed with a small piercing weapon, how should I hold it and where should I aim, assuming the opponent is covered in a medium (or high) quality plate armor?

[Swordguy]

If I found myself disarmed, except for a dagger or a knife, and was forced to fight a fully armored opponent, what would be the best way to attack, if I were to ignore the opponent's weapon and concentrate on wounding him? Trying to stab from above in an attempt to find weak spot near the neck, aiming at some other possible weak spots? Armed with a small piercing weapon, how should I hold it and where should I aim, assuming the opponent is covered in a medium (or high) quality plate armor?


An unarmed defender is always at a distinct disadvantage when facing an armed opponent. It is imperative, therefore, that the unarmed defender understands and uses the following principles to survive. Unarmed defense against an armed opponent should be a last resort.

a. Separation. Maintain a separation of at least 10 feet plus the length of the weapon from the attacker. This distance gives the defender time to react to any attempt by the attacker to close the gap and be upon the defender. The defender should also try to place stationary objects between himself and the attacker.

The defender's course of action includes:

(1) Move the body out of the line of attack of the weapon. Step off the line of attack or redirect the attack of the weapon so that it clears the body.

(2) Control the weapon. Maintain control of the attacking arm by securing the weapon, hand, wrist, elbow, or arm by using joint locks, if possible.

(3) Stun the attacker with an effective counterattack. Counterattack should be swift and devastating. Take the vigor out of the attacker with a low, unexpected kick, or break a locked joint of the attacking arm. Strikes to motor nerve centers are effective stuns, as are skin tearing, eye gouging, and attacking of the throat. The defender can also take away the attacker's balance.

(4) Ground the attacker. Take the attacker to the ground where the defender can continue to disarm or further disable him.

(5) Disarm the attacker. Break the attacker's locked joints. Use leverage or induce pain to disarm the attacker and finish him or to maintain physical control.


This is US Army doctrine, and its principles been taught for near a thousand years. These same principles have been taught going back to the Wrestlings of Ott the Jew and Hans Lichtenauer in the Middle Ages. They go back even further than that in the Eastern Martial Arts. Now that you know the steps, lets see how hard it is to employ them against an armored attacker.

1) Maintaining seperation: Not hard. Arguably easier when he's armored and you aren't. Assuming you can't just run away...

2) Control the Weapon: This is the hardest step. This requires you to accurately judge the attack angle and speed of the weapon, and then either zone in quickly before the stroke falls to intercept it (but you have to wait long enough to be sure he's committed to the attack) on his forearms or wrists with your own arms OR avoid the attack, wait for the attack to pass your body, and then zone in far enough to control the weapon's recovery. In both cases, you want to be inside arm's length from your attacker once you're done zoning in. You started from 10+ feet away...so think about how far you have to move in the time it takes to complete a sword stroke. If you don't get close enough in time, or don't intercept the blow, you're going to get hit. That's bad.

3) Stun the attacker. Difficult at best, because you're hitting his metal skin with your, well, not-metal skin. In this case, you're actually better off quickly improving your control over the weapon (wrap up his weapon arm with yours, etc).

4) Ground the attacker. This one's fun. There's a wide variety of wrestlings (note: Medieval "wrestlings" are actually more akin to modern MMA than anything else - there's punches, grapplings, arm locks, joint-breaking, etc) available for you to choose from in Ott the Jew's book of wrestlings (you can see them, among other places, in Sigmund Ringeck's Fechtbuch). Once you're in this close, with control of his sword arm, you've got options. The easiest is a form of hip throw where (assuming you've got both your arms wrapped around his sword arm) you cross your right foot in front of your left foot and torquing your hips turn 180-degrees to your left, pulling his sword arm and dragging him over your right hip.

5) Eliminate your adversary. This is where you lie on top of him, using your body weight to hold him down, draw your dagger or meisercorde, and stick it in his armpit/groin/oculars/etc. Continue to stick the dagger in uncomfortable places until he stops moving.

You might have noticed how complicated this is, how long it takes, and how many things can go horribly, horrible wrong. In fact, every single step had a potential failure point:

1) You misjudge seperation. He hits and kills you.
2) You're too early or too late while zoning in to arm's length. He hits and kills you.
3) You fail to maintain control of the weapon (he breaks your grip, he hits you with his other, mailed, hand, he knees you with a metal-clad knee, etc). He pulls away or half-swords, and hits and kills you.
4) He breaks free of your attempt to take him to the ground, or you screw up the technique, or he's a better wrestler than you and knows the counter to your technique. Either way, he kills you.
5) He draws a dagger and stabs you while you're on top of him and searching for a gap. He gets out from under you before you've managed to do enough to kill him and...well, there's a lot of things he could do, but the point is, he kills you.

To be clear: having an unarmored person with a knife taking on an armored person with a real weapon is a horrible mismatch, and one that the unarmored person is extremely likely to lose. Armor is a HUGE advantage, the longer and more lethal weapon is another. One screwup, anywhere along the line for the unarmored guy, and he's very dead. If you're in armor, and have only a knife, and he's in armor, you have far more freedom in establishing control over the weapon...but you still don't want to get hit. Concussions happen through armor, as do broken bones, etc. The trick is always going to be getting through the zone where his weapon can hurt you and into arm's length. Then it'll most likely go to the stronger opponent - but if you're more skilled you have a chance. If he's both stronger AND more skilled than you, run.

[Fhaolan]

If I found myself disarmed, except for a dagger or a knife, and was forced to fight a fully armored opponent, what would be the best way to attack, if I were to ignore the opponent's weapon and concentrate on wounding him? Trying to stab from above in an attempt to find weak spot near the neck, aiming at some other possible weak spots? Armed with a small piercing weapon, how should I hold it and where should I aim, assuming the opponent is covered in a medium (or high) quality plate armor?

Echo Swordguy's essay, barring one point. The question has to be asked 'You may be disarmed, but are you in equivalent heavy armour?'

If you are, that changes factors slightly because you now have a weapon beyond the dagger/knife. Your armour itself. While this is definately not recommended, as a last ditch your helm, your elbow cops and knee cops, as well as the gauntlets are all reasonably effective impact weapons if you know how to use them and are willing to take some damage yourself.

EDIT: Sorry, Swordguy, I just noticed you mentioned this at the end of your post. i missed it the first time around.

[Dervag]

On the subject of plate armor, how protective is it? Would it be possible to, for example, thrust a sword into the chest of someone wearing it, or is that not going to happen?

(Specifically, I'm thinking of late-ish Hundred Years War armor).Not unless you're Hercules.* Even then, you're quite a bit more likely to damage your sword than you are to physically pierce the armor.

The impact needed to drive a steel point through steel armor is more than you can achieve with a thrusting motion. With a large weight backing it you can do it on a swing (some polearms work on this principle), but you can't do it by stabbing. Won't work with a spear either.

*And by Hercules, I don't just mean "works out a lot." I mean "has the strength of a supernatural being."
______


To be clear: having an unarmored person with a knife taking on an armored person with a real weapon is a horrible mismatch, and one that the unarmored person is extremely likely to lose. Armor is a HUGE advantage, the longer and more lethal weapon is another. One screwup, anywhere along the line for the unarmored guy, and he's very dead. If you're in armor, and have only a knife, and he's in armor, you have far more freedom in establishing control over the weapon...but you still don't want to get hit. Concussions happen through armor, as do broken bones, etc. The trick is always going to be getting through the zone where his weapon can hurt you and into arm's length. Then it'll most likely go to the stronger opponent - but if you're more skilled you have a chance. If he's both stronger AND more skilled than you, run.Being vastly less familiar with the details of unarmed and badly-armed combat than Swordguy and Fhaolan, I have only one thing to add about this situation:

Even if your opponent is less strong and less skilled than you, you should probably run anyway. Remember, you can't even hurt him unless you deliver very precise blows that are difficult to set up at point blank range. He can cripple or kill you just by getting lucky. So ask yourself: is it really that important that I fight this guy right this minute, even at a gross disadvantage?

[Tsotha-lanti]

If I found myself disarmed, except for a dagger or a knife, and was forced to fight a fully armored opponent, what would be the best way to attack, if I were to ignore the opponent's weapon and concentrate on wounding him? Trying to stab from above in an attempt to find weak spot near the neck, aiming at some other possible weak spots? Armed with a small piercing weapon, how should I hold it and where should I aim, assuming the opponent is covered in a medium (or high) quality plate armor?

Are you armored the same way? If you're both in full harness, I'm not too sure that the disadvantage is so stark. If you can get inside his reach to negate his weapon and grapple him, you could use the dagger to deliver a fatal blow - which is one of the "standard" ways to disable an armored opponent.

What weapon does your opponent have, though? If it's a sword, he'll probably be using it as a lever to grapple you, or half-swording it to stab you with the point. He's not going to be using the reach of the sword, which is good news for you, and you might just need to out-grapple him. If it's an axe, mace, or warhammer, you're pretty screwed (although you could still negate the weapon, see Swordguy's comments), since your armor won't protect you completely - your opponent can just keep his distance and smash you with the weapon, deforming the plates, bruising flesh and breaking bones, and even punching through the plates.

If you're in anything lighter - like mail - you're in much greater danger from blows with any weapon, and would do well to run.

[MickJay]

I'm assuming that the amount/quality of armour is similar in case of both opponents, let's say I'm fighting against someone armed with a sword. Swordguy's post definitely clarified some of the issues I wondered about. Still, if I was dumb and/or persistent enough not to first subdue the opponent before trying to stab him, how should I be trying to stab him while he's still on his feet? Let's say I'm already holding his right arm (with the sword) with my left, and I'm holding the dagger in my right. How should I be holding it (blade up or down) and where to aim (under arms, neck area, somewhere else)?

[Tsotha-lanti]

That's pretty much how you'd want to grapple them anyway (and pretty much how you'd go about knifing anyone out of armor too; trap their right arm against your left side, then stab).

Where the armor is weak varies a lot. Hundred Years' War era, there's probably mail all over with plates on top, and chances of penetration are really bad. You can try - thin blades can slide through the mail links - but odds are you'll poke under his arm or into the inside-elbow-joint of his trapped arm a few times for no effect. You'd stab up under the arm or down into the elbow joint. The armpits are mailed, the neck is protected by a mail aventail and a gorget, probably. Really, what you'd want to do it get the opponent where you can pull his helm off, or push the blade through the opening of the visor. Not much chance of that if he's got an arm free and is standing, I'd think. The neck area is usually one of the best protected, frankly; the gorgets spread down over the breastplate precisely so as to not leave an opening to slip a blade into.

Here's (http://www.houseshadowwolf.com/DiagramGothicArmour1germanischesa.jpg) an example of later Gothic armor; similar coverage, pretty much, although there's probably less mail and more plate. As you can see, the visor is pretty much the only vulnerable place. You could try flipping it up and stabbing the opponent in the eye (the bevor will still protect the neck and lower face).

Gothic armor (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3279/2326039686_859344f0ab.jpg) meant to be worn mounted. Notice the exposed backs of the thighs. Odds of getting at those while standing body-to-body are pretty bad, though.

[Mystic Muse]

this may have already been answered but I don't have the attention span to look through 45 pages. would plate armor, assuming it's more like normal plate armor, not the kind of armor that people imagine but the real life version that people used in wars. would it [B]actually[B] encumber you enough to take your speed down by 1 square? same question about scale.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I think it's safe to assume that even though 30-80 pounds of steel strapped to your limbs don't cripple your agility, you won't be running nearly as fast as you would unarmored. Precise equivalencies between the real world and a game's ruleset are impossible to establish.

[Matthew]

Q3 Plate Armour



Definitely not (and you wouldn't usually thrust with swords used in war in periods when full harness was common). Spears neither, probably (unless you were making a mounted charge; that's a lot of force in one point).



Not unless you're Hercules.* Even then, you're quite a bit more likely to damage your sword than you are to physically pierce the armor.

The impact needed to drive a steel point through steel armor is more than you can achieve with a thrusting motion. With a large weight backing it you can do it on a swing (some polearms work on this principle), but you can't do it by stabbing. Won't work with a spear either.

*And by Hercules, I don't just mean "works out a lot." I mean "has the strength of a supernatural being."

I do not know how far I agree with this assessment. On the one hand it seems reasonable to me, but then I think of weapons that are intended to penetrate plate, which are basically stiffer edgeless versions of sword points, arrow heads and spear heads. The poniard (or is it the ballock dagger?), the estoc, the awl pike, the pile arrow. It seems to me that these represent an improvement in penetrative force (that is to say they are more efficient), but why would a sword point not go through 2-3mm of plate armour? I am not saying it is very likely, but I am not sure I would completely rule it out.

That said, the tests I have seen against a coat of plates strongly suggest to me that even the armour piercing weapons listed above would have difficulty penetrating plate (and moreso the specially hardened fifteenth century stuff, which has been shown to resist the force of even a 150 lb long bow at 60 ft, unlike its munition grade equivalent). Beating down the armoured opponent and dispatching him whilst prone seems the most likely way of defeating him. In that case the sword is pretty much a beat down stick, somewhat less efficient than a mace, flail or hammer, a little more versatile. Not good for the sword, but not really good for many other weapons either. A lucky blow with a pick to the head might be more efficient, but you will probably need a backup weapon if there are secondary opponents.

The effect of a pole axe on plate armour is interesting; the concussive force delivered is much more significant than the penetrative force. I am convinced that the need to overcome plate armour is behind the seeming change from weapon and shield to two handed weapons.

As an aside, what is the evidence for swords not being thrust in fifteenth century warfare? My understanding is that swords became stiffer in the preceding centuries to facilitate just that. Sounds interesting to me.



This may have already been answered but I don't have the attention span to look through 45 pages. would plate armor, assuming it's more like normal plate armor, not the kind of armor that people imagine but the real life version that people used in wars. would it [B]actually[B] encumber you enough to take your speed down by 1 square? same question about scale.

In my opinion, running speed yes, walking or "hustle" speed no. The main enemy, however, was fatigue. After a few minutes of vigorous activity you could certainly start deducting squares of movement. Given the abstract nature of D&D, there is thus some justification in reducing overall movement.

Q4 Weapon Weights



There were such things as two-handed maces and hammers, used in duels and tourneys, but they were not as heavy as a modern sledgehammer. The largest two-handed mace I have in my collection is 5lbs 8oz total and 45" long. The heaviest polearm I have is a standard poleaxe at 6lbs 12oz and 80" long. I am aware of bardiche in another person's collection that weighs just under 10lbs, but I'm not sure of the exact weight. That bardiche is the heaviest two-handed weapon I have personally encountered that was historically accurate and was intended for actual use.

Always an interesting subject. Whilst I gather that:

Dagger = 1-2 lbs (6-12" blade)
Short Sword = 2-3 lbs (12-24" blade)
Long Sword = 3-4 lbs (24-36" blade)
Bastard Sword = 4-5 lbs (36-48" blade)
Great Sword = 5-8 lbs (48"+ blade)

...and that maces, flails, hammers, picks, and axes fall into similar weight bands by proportional size, I am not clear on the weight of spears. Any ideas for...

Spear, 6 ft
Spear, 9 ft
Spear, 12 ft
Lance, 12 ft (same as above?)
Pike, 18 ft
Pike, 24 ft

I figure that a sheaf of 12 arrows weighs around 1-2 lbs (depending on how much each individually weighs).

Obviously, these are not hard limits, just reasonable estimates.



Back to the scene described. The short sword (which would likely be a hanger, but short sword is as close a description as any. :smallbiggrin:) would be almost useless against a heavily armoured opponent. The blade is to big to slide beneath the plates to strike at tendons and arteries, but also too light to attack the joint plates. You would be better off with a misericorde (a kind of large stilleto) that can punch through the gaps between plates, or a mace/one-handed axe, which can crack or warp armour plates. Small swords like hangers were used against lightly armoured opponents, and if you are a heavy-armour wearing person, it would usually only be carried in non-battle situations.

Not a good choice, to be sure, but I wonder... if his opponent is really swinging a very heavy two handed weapon around, a short sword (even a Roman style gladius) might be a good choice for an armpit strike if you can get inside his reach at an exposed moment, or initiate some sort of grapple to create such an opening. Even if the armpit is mail clad you might have a good shot with a short sword.

[Fhaolan]

I'm assuming that the amount/quality of armour is similar in case of both opponents, let's say I'm fighting against someone armed with a sword. Swordguy's post definitely clarified some of the issues I wondered about. Still, if I was dumb and/or persistent enough not to first subdue the opponent before trying to stab him, how should I be trying to stab him while he's still on his feet? Let's say I'm already holding his right arm (with the sword) with my left, and I'm holding the dagger in my right. How should I be holding it (blade up or down) and where to aim (under arms, neck area, somewhere else)?

A lot of this varies based on the *exact* style of heavy armour they're wearing. Under the arm is usually a safe bet no matter what the armour, as is the inside of the elbow and the back of the knee. You'll likely still need to punch through a maille gusset, but at least you're not dealing with plate. Not-quite-so-safe bets is the eyeslit for the visor, the neck joint, and approaching the groin from the rear. I say not-so-safe because there are some styles of eyeslit and neck joints that specifically protect against small blades coming in like that, and getting that artery strike on the inside of the leg next to the groin requires some gymnastics and assumes that the opponent's armour is set up for riding. If the armour is badly fitted, it opens up other strike points at different joints.

[Meridian]

Not a good choice, to be sure, but I wonder... if his opponent is really swinging a very heavy two handed weapon around, a short sword (even a Roman style gladius) might be a good choice for an armpit strike if you can get inside his reach at an exposed moment, or initiate some sort of grapple to create such an opening. Even if the armpit is mail clad you might have a good shot with a short sword.

Uh-huh, I kinda figured that out when I was fighting him, that's why I attempted to dodge and retaliate quickly by attempting to stab him, having lost my main weapon (claymore) earlier in the battle when I was wrestling with another opponent. Besides, it was a journey so I couldn't really kill him or stab his eyes :)

[Fhaolan]

Q4 Weapon Weights

Always an interesting subject. Whilst I gather that:

Dagger = 1-2 lbs (6-12" blade)
Short Sword = 2-3 lbs (12-24" blade)
Long Sword = 3-4 lbs (24-36" blade)
Bastard Sword = 4-5 lbs (36-48" blade)
Great Sword = 5-8 lbs (48"+ blade)

...and that maces, flails, hammers, picks, and axes fall into similar weight bands by proportional size, I am not clear on the weight of spears. Any ideas for...

Spear, 6 ft
Spear, 9 ft
Spear, 12 ft
Lance, 12 ft (same as above?)
Pike, 18 ft
Pike, 24 ft

I figure that a sheaf of 12 arrows weighs around 1-2 lbs (depending on how much each individually weighs).




Heh. I just went and started weighing my spears for you when I realized something. I've never validated any of my spears for historical weight/length before. They're all using shafts of pine as that's what I have easy access to, which has a different strength/weight ratios than the woods that would actually have been used in Europe/Asia like ash, oak, whitewax, etc. Even the oak I can get here is different from the oak in Europe. Given that most of the spear's weight is in the haft, what wood, and the dia. of the wood, will make *massive* differences.

EDIT: Correction, half of my spears have red oak shafts, the other half are pine. All have larger dia. than historical spears as I put them together to comfortably fit my hand, and I have difficulty handling narrow hafted weapons.

[Matthew]

Heh. I just went and started weighing my spears for you when I realized something. I've never validated any of my spears for historical weight/length before. They're all using shafts of pine as that's what I have easy access to, which has a different strength/weight ratios than the woods that would actually have been used in Europe/Asia like ash, oak, whitewax, etc. Even the oak I can get here is different from the oak in Europe. Given that most of the spear's weight is in the haft, what wood, and the dia. of the wood, will make *massive* differences.

EDIT: Correction, half of my spears have red oak shafts, the other half are pine. All have larger dia. than historical spears as I put them together to comfortably fit my hand, and I have difficulty handling narrow hafted weapons.

Heh, heh. Oh well, thanks anyway.

I tried figuring it out with a bit of mathematics and guesswork today. If a spear head is about 1-2 lbs (which seems to be the case) and an ash shaft around 6' is another 2-3 lbs (this is my guess from looking around at online stores and My Armoury), reasonable estimates might be:

Spear, 6 ft: 3-5 lbs
Spear, 9 ft: 4-7 lbs
Spear, 12 ft: 5-8 lbs
Lance, 12 ft: (same as above?)
Pike, 18 ft: 7-11 lbs
Pike, 24 ft: 9-14 lbs

That all looks pretty reasonable to me, and for game purposes I might go with 4|5|6|8|10. What do folks think? Way off? Anybody got any examples or sources? I was looking at:

Arms & Armour (http://www.armor.com/news.html)

Burgundian Pole Axe (http://www.armor.com/pole217.html) (70"; 4.3 lbs).

Lutel Armouries (http://www.lutel.cz/pgs.php?en=1&pg=kat)

Axes and Halberds (http://www.lutel.cz/pgs.php?en=1&pg=kat&s=8) (Heads seem to range from 2-4 lbs).

Museum Replicas (http://www.museumreplicas.com/)

Various Spear Heads (http://www.museumreplicas.com/c-32-pole-arms-spearheads-butt-caps.aspx) (1-2 lbs).
Pole Axe (http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-563-pole-axe.aspx) (68"; 5 lbs).
Square Pilum (http://www.museumreplicas.com/p-567-square-pilum.aspx) (82"; 3½ lbs).

My Armoury (http://www.myarmoury.com/)

Long Bladed Hewing Spearhead (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_mrl_hewing.html) (25¼"; 1 lb, 8 oz).
Higgins Pole Axe (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_higgins_pole.html) (41½"; 3 lbs, 8 oz).
Various Pole Axes (http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_spot_poleaxe.html) (5-8 lbs; I suspect A928, which is 2 lbs 11oz has been weighed without a shaft, but it is unclear whether the much heavier A925, A926, or A927 are with or without shafts).
Custom Halberd (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_em_halb.html) (86¼", 4 lbs, 10 oz).

[edit]
A trip along to Wikipedia suggests a sarissa (12-24 ft) could weigh as much as 12 lbs and that a doru (6-9 ft) might weigh 2-4 lbs. For a six foot spear, two pounds seems rather a low estimate to me, but not impossible.

[Spiryt]

Q3 Plate Armour
Always an interesting subject. Whilst I gather that:

Dagger = 1-2 lbs (6-12" blade)
Short Sword = 2-3 lbs (12-24" blade)
Long Sword = 3-4 lbs (24-36" blade)
Bastard Sword = 4-5 lbs (36-48" blade)
Great Sword = 5-8 lbs (48"+ blade)


Uh...

I'm not an expert in any way, BUT...

No longsword would ever have 24 inch blade. It's way too short.
Even if you count katana as a longsword it's still bit too short.

There is no realy good definition of bastard sword, but generally it's longsword that can be used also in one hand ("normal longsword also can be used like that, but "bastard" excels at this use). So it can't be bigger than "standard" longsword in any way. Do you imagine swinging 48'' blade in one hand?

Similary, while longswords often weighted more than 5 pounds and had more blades longer than 1 meter, bastards were generaly under 3 pounds.

Generally your classification looks like D&D, not real weapons. :smallconfused:


As an aside, what is the evidence for swords not being thrust in fifteenth century warfare? My understanding is that swords became stiffer in the preceding centuries to facilitate just that. Sounds interesting to me

Thrusting sword were used to thrust in the gaps of armor, not TROUGH it.

[Matthew]

Uh...

I'm not an expert in any way, BUT...

No longsword would ever have 24 inch blade. It's way too short.
Even if you count katana as a longsword it's still bit too short.

There is no really good definition of bastard sword, but generally it's longsword that can be used also in one hand ("normal longsword also can be used like that, but "bastard" excels at this use). So it can't be bigger than "standard" longsword in any way. Do you imagine swinging 48'' blade in one hand?

Similarly, while long swords often weighted more than 5 pounds and had more blades longer than 1 meter, bastards were generally under 3 pounds.

Generally your classification looks like D&D, not real weapons. :smallconfused:

Generally, I am using the Japanese codification system, where up to 12" = dagger (tantō, 短刀), 12-24" = short sword (shōtō, 小刀), 24-36" = long sword (daitō, 大刀), 36+ = great sword (ōdachi, 大太刀).

Otherwise I would be up to my armpits in disagreeable nonsense about "Arming Swords" and "Knightly Swords" and "War Swords", etcetera, and this would be of no use as an overview. Ignore the terminology if you prefer, and just go by blade length. Most "true" long swords (in the sense of great swords, war swords, hand and a half, bastard swords or what have you) have blades of 36" or more. One handed swords can have blades of 12-36", but most arming swords, spatha, viking swords, etcetera fall into the 24-36" range (usually about 30") and yes some are as short as 24". The gladius, semi-spatha, katzbalger, and many other swords fall into the 12-24" range. The nomenclature of swords (http://www.thearma.org/terms4.htm) is a minefield of disagreements and lacks any standardised codification system, despite what some folks may say (usually promoting their own system of categorisation). Probably the best accepted definitions are by shape in the form of Oakeshott's Typology (http://www.albion-swords.com/articles/oakeshott-typology.htm).



Thrusting swords were used to thrust in the gaps of armor, not through it.

I am quite aware, and no need to capitalise; that, however, does not appear to be what is being said above, and thus my question.

[Fhaolan]

Otherwise I would be up to my armpits in disagreeable nonsense about "Arming Swords" and "Knightly Swords" and "War Swords", etcetera, and this would be of no use as an overview.

Awwww. *sulk* You don't love me anymore.

:smallcool:

[Swordguy]

Awwww. *sulk* You don't love me anymore.

:smallcool:


That doesn't mean we can't start an argument about weapon nomenclature - just that Matthew didn't want to be the one to start it. :smalltongue:

Or we can come up with our OWN nomenclature that's perfectly valid across all European nations and time periods that's internally consistent and with absolutely no lists of exceptions! How hard could it be?*


*The lack of sarcasm tags in BBCode hurts here...

[Tsotha-lanti]

I am quite aware, and no need to capitalise; that, however, does not appear to be what is being said above, and thus my question.

Definitely a brain-fart on my part; I even mention half-swording, which is thrusting. What I should have said is that longswords and the like were not used to thrust in the way people might usually imagine it - with a hilt grip. From what I've seen of fechtbuchs, that wasn't really done. Half-swording, as mentioned, is a very precise kind of thrusting - not through armor plates, but between them. It's my understanding, too, that the swords developed to be stiffer and more suitable for this kind of thrusting, but I would think the intention was to penetrate the mail, not the plate - not an easy task, but certainly possible and more feasible. A stiff blade with a sharp taper at the end should stand a fair chance at piercing mail.

[MickJay]

Thanks for the replies to my earlier question :smallsmile:

Just a quickie, how would you classifiy those long "swords" with rhomboidal cross-section that were used from horseback like lances? I can't remember the English name of those, sorry. They were definitely made for piercing through armor (and were relatively effective at that) and were practically useless for slashing; so were they still swords, or sword-like lances, something else?

[Swordguy]

Thanks for the replies to my earlier question :smallsmile:

Just a quickie, how would you classifiy those long "swords" with rhomboidal cross-section that were used from horseback like lances? I can't remember the English name of those, sorry. They were definitely made for piercing through armor (and were relatively effective at that) and were practically useless for slashing; so were they still swords, or sword-like lances, something else?

I'm pretty sure you're talking about a Tuck (aka "Estoc" if you aren't in England). They were commonly hung from the saddle, but I've never heard of them being used as lances before - they had actual lances for that.

They aren't really swords, if you consider a sword to be an edged weapon. They're more like 3-foot cross-hilted needles, and were used almost exclusively at the half-sword. They still aren't very good at flat-out penetrating plate (largely due to the deflection angles in the armor), but they'd go through mail - if not like butter, then at least pretty damn effectively and more more easily than a traditional "knightly" arming sword. Their primary use against plate was to go for the cracks and crevices and take the guy apart a limb at a time (the interior joint of the elbow is a favorite target in Tuck-play).

[Matthew]

Awwww. *sulk* You don't love me anymore.

:smallcool:



That doesn't mean we can't start an argument about weapon nomenclature - just that Matthew didn't want to be the one to start it. :smalltongue:

Or we can come up with our OWN nomenclature that's perfectly valid across all European nations and time periods that's internally consistent and with absolutely no lists of exceptions! How hard could it be?*


*The lack of sarcasm tags in BBCode hurts here...

Ha, ha. Indeed. I will quite happily argue the toss about ever increasingly precise definitions of weapon (or sword) nomenclature, not that I expect any constructive results (well, apart from entertainment). :smallbiggrin:



Definitely a brain-fart on my part; I even mention half-swording, which is thrusting. What I should have said is that longswords and the like were not used to thrust in the way people might usually imagine it - with a hilt grip. From what I've seen of fechtbuchs, that wasn't really done. Half-swording, as mentioned, is a very precise kind of thrusting - not through armor plates, but between them. It's my understanding, too, that the swords developed to be stiffer and more suitable for this kind of thrusting, but I would think the intention was to penetrate the mail, not the plate - not an easy task, but certainly possible and more feasible. A stiff blade with a sharp taper at the end should stand a fair chance at piercing mail.

Right you are. Yes, I am pretty sure that these stiffer bladed weapons were not much good for penetrating plate. There is an illustration in one of the Talhoffer manuals of a pole axe butt spike going through plate, and I recall seeing an awl pike do something similar on a History Channel show, but I find that hard to reconcile with other demonstrations I have seen.

[Thane of Fife]

Thanks for the responses. That's one movie I'll never be able to watch again.
I had been wondering what use a sword would be against a suit of plate, and tat nicely answers my question.

[Matthew]

Well, this was hard work to find, but here is a Spanish dubbed version of the History Channel programme I was thinking of: Conquest (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yp50ZzKa6Ts). About five minutes in they have a crack at jabbing a sword through a plate breastplate, and about seven and a half minutes in we are told "maces are favoured by fighting priests who preferred not to draw blood". That last part is by way of a sidebar, which I find not at all surprising, since in another episode a sidebar tells us that a pole axe weighs about 15 lbs; the way they handle them immediately afterwards gives the lie to that. Bloomin' cowboys... :smallbiggrin:

Still, the demonstrations are quite interesting, including the ones they do with the pick in part 2.

[Fhaolan]

Thanks for the replies to my earlier question :smallsmile:

Just a quickie, how would you classifiy those long "swords" with rhomboidal cross-section that were used from horseback like lances? I can't remember the English name of those, sorry. They were definitely made for piercing through armor (and were relatively effective at that) and were practically useless for slashing; so were they still swords, or sword-like lances, something else?

I'm also pretty sure that's called a Tuck. I've always wanted to add a Tuck to my collection... along with a Falx... but good ones are difficult to come by because they are somewhat odd, really.

Stilletoes worked really well, so they upsized one to a Misericorde so it would be more robust and manly. Then someone got the brilliant idea of making a *giant* one, a Tuck. But that didn't work so well, so the idea got shelved.

But everyone was convinced it should have worked, so every once in awhile it got taken down off the shelf and updated a bit. The rapier/tuck combo weapon (edged blade that turns into a unedged thrusting point half-way down the blade) showed up sometime later, and really wasn't that impressive. Eventually edgework became so passe that pointwork became all. Out of this came the mini-tuck, what we all call the smallsword. Mind you a lot of smallswords were still hollowground, so their blades has something vaguely like edges... sorta... if you squint real hard... :smallsmile:

[MickJay]

I followed up the tuck and it wasn't exactly what I was looking for; I did search a little more and it turned out there is no English name for the weapon I was thinking about :smallbiggrin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz Comment in brackets there looks like it could be safely removed, though :smalltongue:

Tuck/estock is similar in function, but looks quite different.

[Fhaolan]

I followed up the tuck and it wasn't exactly what I was looking for; I did search a little more and it turned out there is no English name for the weapon I was thinking about :smallbiggrin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz Comment in brackets there looks like it could be safely removed, though :smalltongue:

Tuck/estock is similar in function, but looks quite different.

I've not seen that one before. Interesting. My wife'll be wanting to get one of those, as she's heavily into the Hussars.

I can't really see it working so well against 'full' plate as such, as such a thin blade (even with a triangle cross-section) has to be relatively fragile. But I could be wrong. I'd need to play around with one to see what can be done with it.

[Swordguy]

I followed up the tuck and it wasn't exactly what I was looking for; I did search a little more and it turned out there is no English name for the weapon I was thinking about :smallbiggrin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz Comment in brackets there looks like it could be safely removed, though :smalltongue:

Tuck/estock is similar in function, but looks quite different.

Hmm...interesting. I'm not sure how effective it'd be. Most melee weapons that are built to penetrate armor require two hands. One of the reasons for this is that the wrist is a fairly weak joint. So with this weapon, a cavalryman would indeed have to use it like a lance - arm outstretched, galloping at the enemy. If you do hit, the entirety of the impact would be transmitted up the arm and through the wrist. I just can't see someone's wrist not bending from that level of impact.

There must be something I'm missing - I'm sure the weapon, with the impact of a horse behind it, can penetrate armor. What I don't see is how the wielder can take the impact on one of the weakest "large" joints in the body.

[Mike_G]

I followed up the tuck and it wasn't exactly what I was looking for; I did search a little more and it turned out there is no English name for the weapon I was thinking about :smallbiggrin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koncerz Comment in brackets there looks like it could be safely removed, though :smalltongue:


While I don't see it penetrating armor plate, could it have been used in lieu of a lance as a reach, impact weapon against lightly armed enemies for the initial charge, then changed for the sabre for an extended melee?

I've seen lots of painting of Hussars with the sabre on their hip and this long, straight sword hung from the saddle. Since they weren't lance armed troops, I could see this used in that role. It seems too long to be as useful as a sabre in close quarters fighting, but it would give an advantage in the charge.

Maybe it could drive through maille of a horse, or between the plates of a horse's barding. I think it would just slide off a breastplate if used in a charge.

[afroakuma]

Me again!

Still seeking unusual weapons for the upcoming Arabian campaign setting, and I'm still stuck at just the (supposedly) vicious falx.

Latest idea: 2 to 3 ft. long weapon, first foot or so as the hilt, remainder a smooth metal cylinder and at the top, a single point jutting out the side.

So, something like an L made of metal is what you'd be whacking people with.

Would there be any utility to such a weapon?

[Swordguy]

You're more or less describing a military pick. Nasty weapon, quite good at penetrating armor. Downside is that is has a tendency to get stuck in the target and is a relatively slow weapon. Historically, they tended to be combined with a hammerhead on the opposite side as the "beak" end to act as a warhammer as well.

[afroakuma]

You're more or less describing a military pick. Nasty weapon, quite good at penetrating armor. Downside is that is has a tendency to get stuck in the target and is a relatively slow weapon. Historically, they tended to be combined with a hammerhead on the opposite side as the "beak" end to act as a warhammer as well.

Yes, but I was thinking solid bar and tiny spike. Good for penetration of armor but not to catch hold. Also to be used as a light bludgeon. Like a spike of maybe 1 cm to 1 inch in length.

[Swordguy]

Yes, but I was thinking solid bar and tiny spike. Good for penetration of armor but not to catch hold. Also to be used as a light bludgeon. Like a spike of maybe 1 cm to 1 inch in length.


That short a spike won't matter. A penetrating hit requires about 2" of penetration to do any significant damage (helms are suspended about the head on a layer of padding, so still require about that much penetration to get through the padding and skull). The shortest spike I can see being useful on a weapon like this is probably about 4", since you'll need the leverage - applying shear force perpendicular to the impact direction - to pull it out of the armor, and the longer the spike the greater the shear force you can apply. Principle of leverage and all.

Oh yes...it'll have a chance of getting stuck in armor. The armor edges will be pointing inwards after you've breached it, and that means it'll want to catch or at least impede the weapon as it withdrawals. There's a Conquest video somewhere out there where they strike a cheap collector's helm with a pick, and it's a real effort to pull it back out - a "real" helm would probably be even worse.

[afroakuma]

Good to know.

Alright. *sigh* Back to the drawing board.

Well, at least I still have my falx. :smallbiggrin:

[Fhaolan]

You mean something like this:

http://www.coldsteel.com/gunstockwarclub.html

But made of all metal? :smallbiggrin:

On a less serious note, if you want weird-ass weapons, here's a list:

A throwing shovel. Those wacky Russians!

http://www.spetsnaz-gru.com/spetsnaz-entrenching-shovel-1.htm

The bandsaw whip (Urumi). Those wacky Malasians!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urumi

The hunga munga (throwing... thing). Those wacky Africans!

http://www.therionarms.com/antiques/com165.html

The stabbing axe. Those wacky.... well okay, that's me, many years ago. I still have the axe, somewhere. It's actually a 15th century horseman's axe from Northern Europe, but the audience didn't care.

http://www.seattleknights.com/gallery/gallerypicture.asp?Picture=2289

[Thane of Fife]

The hunga munga (throwing... thing). Those wacky Africans!


I've got a book somewhere with pictures of about a dozen of those. That one is probably the tamest of them all - most have far more branches, looking almost like giant throwing stars.

[afroakuma]

I can't imagine the urumi being practical in the least.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I can't imagine the urumi being practical in the least.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNHhebh7ek8

It strikes me very much as a specialized dueling weapon. The rapier would probably have been equally useless in a 16th-century battlefield.

[Rasilak]

Yeah, it's the same with all (long) chain weapons. They tend to be more dangerous for the wielder (and his friends) than for the enemy.
The urumi looks quite flashy, and is probably very easy to conceal (at least for a weapon with that much reach), but it would suck big time on the battlefield. (EDIT: especially its performance against armor should leave much to be desired)
Plus, if you spent enough time into training with this weapon that you're not a danger to yourself anymore, you could be really good with a more practical weapon.
Once a very wise man (I think it was Mikhail Timofeyevich Kalashnikov) said: "Everything useful is simple, and nothing complicated is ever useful."

[Fortinbras]

Does anyone know when unarmed combat training became a part of regular army training?

Also what armies gave individual hand to hand combat trainging to regular soldiers?

I kind of get the impression that Rome was one of the first armies to have well trained foot soldiers who were a part of the state army and were all issued with the same stuff and that this didn't happen after that until the 18th century but I don't really know much about it.

[Fhaolan]

Does anyone know when unarmed combat training became a part of regular army training?

Also what armies gave individual hand to hand combat trainging to regular soldiers?

I kind of get the impression that Rome was one of the first armies to have well trained foot soldiers who were a part of the state army and were all issued with the same stuff and that this didn't happen after that until the 18th century but I don't really know much about it.

To my knowledge, unarmed combat training is rare in armies, unless they very specifically have scout/guerilla/special service units. The soldiers may amuse themselves with unarmed bouts and duels, but formal training is rare. Of course, what exactly defines 'formal' unarmed combat training is quite variable. Dumping a dozen soldiers in a pit filled with grease and seeing which one of the makes it out first might very well be considered formal unarmed combat training in some cultures. Having two solders simply stand toe-to-toe and punch each other unconcious might also be considered formal unarmed combat training. Millage varies. :smallsmile:

The oldest evidence of a trained, standing army that I am aware of is for the Sumerian Empire in 40th Century BC. Mainly because that's as far back as recorded history goes. :)

Also, the quality of the Roman armies varies greatly over time, as they existed over a very long period of time. While they were exceedingly effective at one point, we can't really say they were *always* so effective.

[Fortinbras]

i was under the impression that at least at one point the Roman army was surprisingly like the modern US one. Don't modern soldiers in most modern armies get unarmed combat training?

What are other examples of armies with G.I. type soldiers.

[Norsesmithy]

My understanding was different, Fhaolan, It was my understanding that at least a few basics of unarmed fighting were taught to most, at least American, soldiers. I know that the Marines, right now, give everyone at least a smidgeon of Marine Martial Art, an art designed to be dirty, dangerous, and easy to learn, and I think that the Army has a similar course.

According to my grandfather, the soldiers in our army, around the Korean War had some unarmed training, but that it was mostly hit or miss quality. I know that the close combat manual used by the Army and the Marines during WWII had some unarmed skills, though it mostly focused on bladed weapons and improvised bludgeons, and that doughboys headed for Europe in WWI were given some unarmed instruction.

I would bet that you could find evidence of at least limited unarmed fighting training in one kind of an army or another all throughout history.

[Adlan]

Millage varies.

I read that as Milling varies :)

For those no in the know, Milling is not a sort of unarmed combat training....

...it's more like getting the snot beaten out of you to show how hard you are. While doing it to other.

[Fortinbras]

Does anyone happen to know what the largest number of armed men to be defeated by a single man in close combat is? Or at least some records of posiblities?

[Crow]

The battle of Stamford Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stamford_Bridge) has an interesting account of something like this. Not clear on numbers (wikipedia says over 40, which is still quite amazing), but someone else will be along shortly to go into great detail about stuff like this.

I have assumed you were talking about a single battle. For lifetime totals (duels and such), Myamoto Musashi is a good name to look up.

[Norsesmithy]

The biggest question that needs to be answered in asking that question is "How reliable are the accounts?".

We can't really know.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It's an interesting topic. There's at least two big factors at work - first is that people need room when fighting, and you can't cram that many people that close to one person before they get in each others' way. Second is that people don't want to get hurt, usually. In a one-on-one match, you're the only one there, and you know you're going to get hurt. But when there's others around, most people will want to wait for one of the others to go in and put the other guy down or off-balance so they can jump in and beat on him without risk to themselves. I've got a friend (about 10 years of different martial arts, from full-contact cailifo to taido to boxing to kyokushinkai) who's actually started brawls with 4-5 people at once and won, mostly on the second principle.

You probably need to define some clearer parameters, though. Are we talking brawlers, soldiers, armed or unarmed, armored or unarmored, is "sequential" allowed (narrow hall, doorway, bridge, whatever)?

[Rasilak]

Basically, if your one guy is unarmed, in relatively open terrain, and has to fight multiple armed opponents that are out to kill him, he's pretty much screwed, no matter how badass he is. His only feasible options are running away or fighting retreat. If it's only two or three guys, he might disable one before the others notice what's going on if he attacks first. But fighting even one armed opponent who knows what he's doing is really hard (when you're unarmed). Your best bet (after running away) is probably to underrun your enemies range and go into grappling (if his weapon is too large to be used in grappling - if he's got a knife, you're pretty much dead if you try this).
However, if his enemies are not primarily concerned about killing him, but about saving their own lifes (like in the situation Tsotha-lanti describes, which is actually very typical), his chances might be better. As long as only one guy at a time has the guts (or the chance - like in narrow spaces) to attack him, and he does not make any mistakes (like giving the others a chance to hit him without much fear of being hit back), he can basically fight until he's exhausted, which might net him a quite impressive number of kills before he finally goes down.

However, the situation is completely different if this one guy is armed (and armored!). But in that case there are way too many variables to give even vague numbers.

Perhaps the best answer on how much people one can successfully fight at once is from Keith R. Kernspecht: "Between one and one hundred, depending on my form on the day."

[Tsotha-lanti]

FWIW my friend has never racked up any kills. :smalleek:

[Yora]

The biggest question that needs to be answered in asking that question is "How reliable are the accounts?".

We can't really know.
But in a world of fiction, fictious boasting is real. :smallbiggrin:

Unless you had martial zeros like me, taking up a sharp stick and trying to rush a fully equiped and trained samurai, I think more than 3 or 4 sounds highly implausible.

[Tsotha-lanti]

But in a world of fiction, fictious boasting is real. :smallbiggrin:

The thread name starts with "real-world".

[Dervag]

But in a world of fiction, fictious boasting is real. :smallbiggrin:

Unless you had martial zeros like me, taking up a sharp stick and trying to rush a fully equiped and trained samurai, I think more than 3 or 4 sounds highly implausible.Three or four at once against a competent warrior (be they knight, Spartiate, Japanese samurai, Aztec pipiltin, or whatever) would be about the limit. But a good fighter will do everything in their power to take opponents one at a time. And against true martial zeroes, a fully armed and trained warrior could probably keep killing enemies until they collapsed from exhaustion.

Think about an instructor in any kind of close combat (Western or oriental martial arts, fencing, you name it). If you've just come into the school, you never get a hit on the real instructors. You don't know the moves and you don't know how to get past their defenses. They, on the other hand, have dealt with everything you could plausibly throw at them, and they know the established counters. And they know the counters to what you might do in reaction to their first counter, and so on. You'll have to study for months or years to get good enough to even occasionally score off the master.

Now extend that to fighting with real weapons. Throw an infinite succession of martial zeroes with pointy sticks (or even with decent weapons and armor) at a single master. Unless they can all gang up on the master at once, the only real enemy the master has is physical exhaustion.
_____

Part of the problem is that Fortinbras' question is unclear. Does he mean "the most people beaten by one person in close combat at once," or does he mean "the most people beaten by one person, one at a time, during a battle," or does he mean "the most people beaten by any one person over that person's entire life?"

[Lapak]

Now extend that to fighting with real weapons. Throw an infinite succession of martial zeroes with pointy sticks (or even with decent weapons and armor) at a single master. Unless they can all gang up on the master at once, the only real enemy the master has is physical exhaustion.Which could happen pretty quickly. I understand that a major part of preventing gang-attacks is controlling the flow of combat, and that involves a lot of movement: running into a tight space to funnel attackers down, charging the group to spook them and taking out one or two in the process, switching from flight to fight and taking out the attackers who don't realize it quickly enough; all of this means a lot of hustling. A trained, armed attacker who knows how to control a combat might be able to beat a lot of newbies, but unless they are in absolute top condition they won't be able to keep it up forever.

[Crow]

I used to have to do a bit of that while fighting the mexicans after school everyday. Keeping yourself moving so that nobody can get behind you long enough to take advantage of the situation, along with trying to physically hurt people in the process is extremely grueling. Most of the time, you just can't keep that up for a long period, and will get overwhelmed eventually.

[Fhaolan]

Concur. Having been in a good number of real life-threatening brawls, the key to survival for many-on-one is terrain. Using the terrain (be it tables, chairs, posts, rocks, whatever) to keep them from getting at you more than two at a time, and in restricted enough areas so that even those two are interfering with each other more than helping... that's critical.

Which is not just being physically grueling; you have to be alert mentally as well to conciously recognize and understand what you're doing. Going in there all instinct and grit? Gonna get you killed, real fast.

[Rasilak]

Think about an instructor in any kind of close combat (Western or oriental martial arts, fencing, you name it). If you've just come into the school, you never get a hit on the real instructors. You don't know the moves and you don't know how to get past their defenses. They, on the other hand, have dealt with everything you could plausibly throw at them, and they know the established counters. And they know the counters to what you might do in reaction to their first counter, and so on. You'll have to study for months or years to get good enough to even occasionally score off the master.
Well, in some styles someone semi-trained in another style, or sometimes even a real noob, can hit a pro who is not prepared for that kind of attack (this is mostly the case in tournament sports, and would probably not net any points in a official tournament, but might still be a dangerous hit).
But I have yet to see this in any style designed for 'real' combat.
It can happen anytime the noobs are not playing by the rules for which the pro has learned his techniques (see: peasant revolts).

[Dervag]

Well, in some styles someone semi-trained in another style, or sometimes even a real noob, can hit a pro who is not prepared for that kind of attack (this is mostly the case in tournament sports, and would probably not net any points in a official tournament, but might still be a dangerous hit).
But I have yet to see this in any style designed for 'real' combat.
It can happen anytime the noobs are not playing by the rules for which the pro has learned his techniques (see: peasant revolts).Only if the pros are badly trained.

They may have spent a lot of time getting their bad training, but any training that only lets you counter very specific attack modes is not good training. I don't think normal medieval peasant revolts qualified; when peasants went toe-to-toe with trained knights, they usually died.

[Yora]

But there's always a little amount of "chance".
Even the best trained fighter can't see everything comming in the right time to deflect or evade it.

As the old saying goes: "The best laid out plan works only until the first contact with the enemy."

[Dervag]

But there's always a little amount of "chance".
Even the best trained fighter can't see everything comming in the right time to deflect or evade it.

As the old saying goes: "The best laid out plan works only until the first contact with the enemy."Yes. But if you look at the small amount of chance, and multiply by how long it takes for the chance to happen, you will come to the conclusion that as a good general rule, an expert melee fighter going against incompetent melee fighters in a situation that allows him to fight one on one should be able to keep fighting them off until exhaustion sets in.

By which point quite a few of the incompetents may be dead.

[13_CBS]

Three or four at once against a competent warrior (be they knight, Spartiate, Japanese samurai, Aztec pipiltin, or whatever) would be about the limit. But a good fighter will do everything in their power to take opponents one at a time. And against true martial zeroes, a fully armed and trained warrior could probably keep killing enemies until they collapsed from exhaustion.


I recall reading an article from The Association for Renaissance Martial Arts (thearma.org), written by a student of John Clements (the...director? of ARMA, I think). He makes an anecdote about a sparring exercise where it was him and a bunch of fellow students (around 10 or so) vs John Clements, all armed with practice weaponry. John Clements proceeded to lure his students out of bunching together and taking advantage of their numbers, and landed "killing" blows with his practice sword without even being touched once. Thus, it wouldn't surprise me if a master, who is used to exerting himself in a combat situation, could outlast and outfight a surprising number of enemies if the terrain is favorable.

[Dervag]

The trick is that Clements did exactly what I'm talking about. Realizing that he could not fight a coordinated group of ten people, he was able to break up their coordination and fight them individually or in smaller groups.

So whether or not he took on ten people "at once" and won depends on how you define "at once."

[Lapak]

The trick is that Clements did exactly what I'm talking about. Realizing that he could not fight a coordinated group of ten people, he was able to break up their coordination and fight them individually or in smaller groups.

So whether or not he took on ten people "at once" and won depends on how you define "at once."I think I read the same article. It made a very big deal of the fact that a lot of martial arts training consists of specific maneuvers and attacks, with the distinction that martial combat training - that people who made their living through combat received, and receive - involves the same thing but with the addition of strategic awareness and how to do exactly what we're talking about is part and parcel of that training. If it's skill and practice that allows one to break up a group into manageable portions, discounting that as 'taking X people on at once' seems silly.

EDIT: To clarify, it's not that the students didn't WANT to be coordinated, it's that he prevented them from accomplishing it. That counts as part of 'taking on the group' under any reasonable definition.

[Crow]

Only if the pros are badly trained.

They may have spent a lot of time getting their bad training, but any training that only lets you counter very specific attack modes is not good training. I don't think normal medieval peasant revolts qualified; when peasants went toe-to-toe with trained knights, they usually died.

I believe there is at least one group of Flemish peasants who would disagree.

To be fair, you did say "usually". :smalltongue:

[Swordguy]

I believe there is at least one group of Flemish peasants who would disagree.

To be fair, you did say "usually". :smalltongue:

Godentag indeed.

That said, my combat experience mirrors the advice of Dervag and Fhaolan. Against multiple adversaries, keep moving and turn it as best you can into a series of 1-on-1 fights rather than 4-on-1*. And honestly, it's far more mentally fatiguing than physically. You have to THINK faster than they do, your reaction loop must be much, much shorter or the sheer number of actions they can take will overwhelm you. As a rule of thumb from sparring sessions, if you can't take out any given target in two seconds or less, the others will pile on you and you're done.

For anyone wanting to look into this further from a training perspective, I know that Krav Maga very specifically teaches "many on 1". Very, very few other martial disciplines do this with any regularity. I don't pretend to be a KM guy, though. ...actually, Crow, weren't you talking KM to somebody in General Discussion when he asked about specific martial arts practices? You a KM person?

*With a shield, 2-on-1's are possible, but hardly sought after. It's just easier to defend your shield side with that big slab hanging there, y'know? :smalltongue:

[Crow]

I'm not a "KM guy". There are some fellows on my team that have done it quite a bit though, so I just get what they trickle down to me when we train. If I did mention KM it was probably just in passing.

[Fortinbras]

I meant in a single engagment, and with all variable other than numbers in favor of the single man.

[Fhaolan]

I meant in a single engagment, and with all variable other than numbers in favor of the single man.

With everything in the favour of the single man, which means he can keep the fight being 1-1 or at worse 1-2 at any one given moment, it's not a matter of how many opponents total there are. It's just how long can he keep going before becoming exhausted and starts to make mistakes. Time is the enemy more than the opponents.

[Crow]

Well if everything is favor of the one man, I would expect that as soon as he started to get tired, all the bad guys would back off and dudes would come out and give the guy some of those jelly packets to down while he rested.

[Rasilak]

They may have spent a lot of time getting their bad training, but any training that only lets you counter very specific attack modes is not good training.Yeah, I agree that this could be described as 'bad training'. Nonetheless, quite a lot of popular martial arts and combat sports have this problem. Looking at what is not allowed (or not part of the repertoire) in the particular sport is quite a good guide to how a semi-pro from another discipline can kick the butts of the pros.
However, there are also some styles which have very few weaknesses, and they might even be aware of them. And these are probably the styles that find most use on battlefields.

I don't think normal medieval peasant revolts qualified; when peasants went toe-to-toe with trained knights, they usually died.
In one-on-one situations, sure. But this would be 'by the rules' from the knight's point of view. However, if the peasants started building traps and barricades, ganged up on the knights or did ambushes on small, unprepared groups of knights, they could be surpisingly effective (given their lack of good training and equipment).
The record of pitched battles in peasant revolts is not that good (for the peasants), because that's what the knights trained for and were good at.
(As Crow pointed out, with the glorious exception of the Flemish. I'd like to add Switzerland to the list.)

[Fhaolan]

Yeah, I agree that this could be described as 'bad training'. Nonetheless, quite a lot of popular martial arts and combat sports have this problem. Looking at what is not allowed (or not part of the repertoire) in the particular sport is quite a good guide to how a semi-pro from another discipline can kick the butts of the pros.
However, there are also some styles which have very few weaknesses, and they might even be aware of them. And these are probably the styles that find most use on battlefields.


That's because most martial arts now-a-days are not actually combat forms anymore. They are exercise forms or sport/sparring forms. They *started* as combat forms, but have move away from that. Just like jousting, archery, fencing, etc.; once it became a sport rather than battle training, it becomes less and less effective when thrown back into a real combat situation. Actual combat situations don't get covered in training as they can't happen on the mat/range/whatever, and therefore are a waste of time to the modern practitioners, so they get dropped.

[Dervag]

In one-on-one situations, sure. But this would be 'by the rules' from the knight's point of view. However, if the peasants started building traps and barricades, ganged up on the knights or did ambushes on small, unprepared groups of knights, they could be surpisingly effective (given their lack of good training and equipment).Be advised that all these things fall outside my definition of "toe to toe." In all those cases, the peasants start with the realization that in a straightforward, hand to hand fight against a better armed and more experienced enemy, they're going to die. Then they start getting clever, at which point they can plausibly hope to win.


The record of pitched battles in peasant revolts is not that good (for the peasants), because that's what the knights trained for and were good at.
(As Crow pointed out, with the glorious exception of the Flemish. I'd like to add Switzerland to the list.)In both cases, the "peasant revolt" in question had a solid core of well-disciplined heavy infantry and the ability to pick the terrain- which neutralizes the advantage of superior individual combat training.

[Renegade Paladin]

To put in a practical perspective as someone who fights melees with medieval/Renaissance replica weaponry, it's surprisingly easy to turn a however many (up to a point) on one into a series of one on ones if the many aren't specifically trained on how to maintain unit cohesion. With two or three on one, it's as easy as picking one of them and pressing him to the side his ally isn't on (if it's three, the one chosen has to be the one not in the middle). What the one being pressed should do is actually fall back in such a way that he maintains the triangle formed by himself, his ally, and their enemy so that his ally is not at any point out of reach of the enemy if the enemy continues to advance on him.

The one, if he is smart, will then begin pressing the other half of the pair, who should do the same thing; ideally the first of the pair will pick up on the fact that the focus has switched and stop backing up as well, or he'll put himself out of reach. You may think that it would be obvious and any dolt would stop backing up, except that in melee combat, seconds matter, and the seconds spent by one extra step back and the step forward to correct the error can easily be critical. Unless the pair work in perfect coordination, it's easy for one person who keeps the initiative to effectively separate them in terms of bringing their weapons to bear even if they stay right next to each other. The more participants there are, the harder this becomes, due to the ability of extra people to attempt flanking, encircling tactics, and so forth.

[Fortinbras]

what is the doctrine for attacking a man dressed in a full battle harnes if you are armed with a sword and sheild (making morte striking difficult)

[Storm Bringer]

my understanding (garnered form browsing the web and with no practical EXP in the matter) is that it boils down to sparring with the intent to render the opponent helpless (pinned, concussed, whatever) for long enough to silp a dagger though a joint, or get a clear stab at the face (since it was normal to fight in melee with the visor raised so that you could see clearly, as the visor was designed with thin, arrow-proof eye slits that would so limit your peripheral vision as to render you effectively blind in close combat)

[Tsotha-lanti]

what is the doctrine for attacking a man dressed in a full battle harnes if you are armed with a sword and sheild (making morte striking difficult)

Disarm him, discard your shield, then half-sword and use your sword as a lever to help throw or trip the opponent, and kill him on the ground?

A sword and a shield is a pretty bad combination against a fully armored warrior, since you can only swing, hack, and thrust with one hand and aren't likely to achieve penetration (or even significant deformation). Are we talking about sword & shield while in full armor, or is the shield the only protection? What's the other guy fighting with?

Using the shield to strike your opponent's head may work as well as or better than morte-striking (though I imagine swinging a shield is pretty tiring).

Edit:

(since it was normal to fight in melee with the visor raised so that you could see clearly, as the visor was designed with thin, arrow-proof eye slits that would so limit your peripheral vision as to render you effectively blind in close combat)

Depends on the helm. Older barrel helms had no visor, just the slits (but then those were mostly back in the full maille days, I think). And the visor on gothic armor tended to be really different from the common idea of them, for instance (example (http://www.houseshadowwolf.com/DiagramGothicArmour1germanischesa.jpg)).

[Spiryt]

what is the doctrine for attacking a man dressed in a full battle harnes if you are armed with a sword and sheild (making morte striking difficult)

Well, in the first place, define "battle harness".

Anyway, no one can be really sure, beacuse even though people are fighting other people in armour today, obviously no one tries to kill or even seriously harm the opponent.

Generally you can try to thrust in the joints/gaps. The more your sword is adjusted for thrusting, the better. Of course, joints were usually reifnorced with mail, heavy textile etc. (depending on period and other things).

You can of course attack with cuts and pommel, to cause trauma of impact nature. It's rather hard, but as far as I know, dents in helmet from swords are not unknown in reenactment fights.



Depends on the helm. Older barrel helms had no visor, just the slits (but then those were mostly back in the full maille days, I think). And the visor on gothic armor tended to be really different from the common idea of them, for instance (example (http://www.houseshadowwolf.com/DiagramGothicArmour1germanischesa.jpg)).

Yeah, it really depends on the helmet.

It could be sallet with gorget or armet (or other close melm) or bascinet with visor....

On the other hand, many combatants, especially foot ones were wearing open helmets like kettle hats. So face was relatively unprotected all time.

[Tsotha-lanti]

If you're lucky enough to be fighting a knight in late Gothic harness, you can try to get behind them and slice open the backs of their thighs and their ass - they were rarely covered by late knightly Gothic armor, since they were usually planted firmly against the horse. Example. (http://www.gradovi.net/images/author_gothic_armor.jpg)

[Spiryt]

If you're lucky enough to be fighting a knight in late Gothic harness, you can try to get behind them and slice open the backs of their thighs and their ass - they were rarely covered by late knightly Gothic armor, since they were usually planted firmly against the horse. Example. (http://www.gradovi.net/images/author_gothic_armor.jpg)

The back of the legs were from obvious reason generally relatively umprotected by all forms of plate armour. Early example (http://www.man.poznan.pl/~ritter/Wieruszyce2006/show.php?nr=39).

But to strike there, you would generally need an opponent who is running away. Or incompetent enough to let you do it. :smallwink:

[Fortinbras]

What about armpits, are they vulnerable?

If you don't have armor yourself then you can't halfsword without slicing your hands in half can you?

[Tsotha-lanti]

What about armpits, are they vulnerable?

If you don't have armor yourself then you can't halfsword without slicing your hands in half can you?

Armpits tended to be covered by mail or textile, depending on the suit. Usually either the pauldron extended onto the chest (http://www.houseshadowwolf.com/DiagramGothicArmour1germanischesa.jpg), or the area between the arm and chest was covered by a round piece of metal (http://www.gradovi.net/images/author_gothic_armor.jpg) (I forget the term; I want to say rondel, but that's a dagger).

And swords were not actually very sharp at all, and were quite thick; they didn't slice things open neatly, like knives. Many manuals (like Talhoffer's armed and unarmored longsword) show men half-swording and morte-striking without any hand protection. At the most, you'd probably need thick gloves. Mail-palmed arming gloves were more for catching an opponent's sword than grasping your own by the blade, AFAIK.

And then there's the fact that many swords had quite a long ricasso (unsharpened section of blade right after the hilt), specifically to be grasped.

The problem is... well, try thrusting a 3-foot sword you're holding in one hand into someone's armpit. You need to go straight up, pretty much, and that's just not very workable. It's much easier to do while half-swording, or with a dagger.

Generally, you'd be foolish to go against a fully armored opponent with a sword and a shield. You want a proper longsword, or a warhammer or mace, or at least an axe. (Contrary to popular imagery, battle-axes had quite narrow blades, often uncurved, and could probably puncture armor plates since the force is concentrated on a very short edge. Like so. (https://historyshop.piratemerch.com/images/battle_ax_554_2_.jpg))

Spiryt: Bang on the head to stun the opponent, then get behind them and cut the back of the leg. It's not easy, obviously, but it should be doable. Alternatively, get them on their face on the ground. You can hack up the ass and legs instead of discarding your shield and grappling... It's not easy, but if you're fighting an armored man without the right tools, you're not going to get easy anyway.

[Fortinbras]

If you did have gloves would half-swording or morte striking be workable with a onehanded sword?

How do you guys learn all this stuff anyway?

[Swordguy]

If you did have gloves would half-swording or morte striking be workable with a onehanded sword?

You don't need gloves, necessarily, to half-sword. A very tight grip is sufficient. The damage the sword blade will do to your hands does not come from the pressure of holding the weapon, it comes from the blade moving to and fro within your palm. Now, certainly, a moderately thick leather glove is desirable just for insurance, but you don't want "thick" thick gloves when fighting because you need to feel how much pressure your opponent's blade is exerting on yours. This is important for a whole LOT of techniques.

Half-swording isn't really anything special - it's a natural part of swordplay to be used when the distance closes to within arm's reach, to shorten the weapon, apply more force, or apply leverage. All developed sword systems prior to the Renaissance (and many during and after) include half-swording as a matter of course. For example, German Messer fighting (shown here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ&feature=channel)) clearly shows half-swording used at the 0:18 second mark (amoung other places). You'll note the historical plates shown also make no mention of gloves on the fighters.

Secondarily, the big reason for chain gloves is that the hands are a GREAT target. They can't be defended very well at all while striking (this is whole deal, for example, behind MS I.33 - the earliest extant fight book from Europe), and thus need whatever protection they can get. EVERY fechtbuch I've read (ie, all of them that have been translated to English) have the head and hands as the two primary targets, in order of priority. Try to catch a swung sword in one and you'll break your hand. Protection against your own blade while half-swording would be a purely ancillary benefit.

EDIT:

How do you guys learn all this stuff anyway?

Research. Armchair theorizing. Actual Sparring and cutting practice. Most of us on this thread are amateur hopologists to one degree or another. Many of us are participants in various historical reenactment societies or combat groups. I personally choreograph fights on film and stage for a living, so it's my job to know this sort of thing.

[Spiryt]

And swords were not actually very sharp at all, and were quite thick; they didn't slice things open neatly, like knives. Many manuals (like Talhoffer's armed and unarmored longsword) show men half-swording and morte-striking without any hand protection. At the most, you'd probably need thick gloves. Mail-palmed arming gloves were more for catching an opponent's sword than grasping your own by the blade

Uh... Actually swords were sharp, some of them are very sharp even now, after few centuries of corroding. Of course stabbing swords designed for halfswording were on average less sharp.

I've never done half swording, but I would bet that right technique is everything. You can grab even sharp blade and grab it hard without any cutting, as long as you don't move your hand along the blade, beacuse that would cause slicing. Pressure alone would not cause injury ( at least if sword isn't somehow idiotically sharp).

This can be checked on any sharp, broad knife. You can squeeze it hard, and you won't get cut.



And then there's the fact that many swords had quite a long ricasso (unsharpened section of blade right after the hilt), specifically to be grasped.
Even the swords without actual ricasso are usually pretty blunt near the guard and get gradually sharper up to the center of percussion.



Generally, you'd be foolish to go against a fully armored opponent with a sword and a shield. You want a proper longsword, or a warhammer or mace, or at least an axe. (Contrary to popular imagery, battle-axes had quite narrow blades, often uncurved, and could probably puncture armor plates since the force is concentrated on a very short edge. Like so. (https://historyshop.piratemerch.com/images/battle_ax_554_2_.jpg))

That axe is totally not XV cent, though.

And heavy thrusting sword like type XV or XXa isn't so foolish idea against plate. Of course, some two handed weapon would be better, but precise stab is better against plate than many other thing.


Spiryt: Bang on the head to stun the opponent, then get behind them and cut the back of the leg. It's not easy, obviously, but it should be doable. Alternatively, get them on their face on the ground. You can hack up the ass and legs instead of discarding your shield and grappling... It's not easy, but if you're fighting an armored man without the right tools, you're not going to get easy anyway.

Meh, that's classic internet fencing with imagination, so I would not dwell on it.

I can only say that if you can that if you can stun or trip enemy so heavily that you can freely cut their leg, you can also do many other things with them instead.



For example, German Messer fighting (shown here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38sVdx7nzhQ&feature=channel)) clearly shows half-swording used at the 0:18 second mark (amoung other places). You'll note the historical plates shown also make no mention of gloves on the fighters.


Yeah, that's one great video. I wonder if the checked those strikes with sharp replicas anyway. That would be more... ultimately educational.

[Fhaolan]

If you did have gloves would half-swording or morte striking be workable with a onehanded sword?

How do you guys learn all this stuff anyway?

Gloves are useful when half-swording because us moderns have such baby-soft hands compared to people who actually fight with swords for a living. :smallbiggrin:

Halfswording can, and normally is, done with any blade of a respectable length, and has equivalent techniques with any melee weapon of a respectable length, including clubs, axes, etc. If you have dealt with modern police, many of them are equiped with batons where are basically what gamers would recognize as a tonfa. Most of the techniques around tonfa center around grip-shifting, including a double-handed grip with spacing between the hands.

Another martial art that uses halfsword-like techniques with a club is Bataireacht, or Irish Stick Fighting, from where we get the term shillelagh.

As for where did I learn all this stuff? Like most of us here, I've learned it from multiple places. I spent a lot of my childhood in a slum, so I've been in a good number of gang fights and brawls with improvised weaponry. I've worked as a stage-combat actor and choreographer, and have been trained to at least 'entry-level' proficiency in several weapon-form martial arts including 'medieval martial arts' which isn't very well recognized still. I've studied the period fightbooks, gone to museums to examine weapons and armour, and I got to know a lot of people with private collections which have allowed me to get a bit more close-up-and-personal with actual period equipment. I've also spent at lot of time just experimenting with weapons and equipment that were made to reasonably match the properties (weight, balance, etc.) of the actual equipment. In many cases I ended up making the equipment myself, learning how to make bows, arrows, axes, etc. I've not gotten up to the point of making a sword on my own though.

Now, mind you with all this stuff, I'm not actually a very good fighter. I 'know' an awful lot, but getting it into practice... I've also had all the tendons in my hands severed and re-attached in an industrial accident when I was working in an oil refinery as well as I've had the ligaments in my knee severed and replaced more recently, and several other accidents. So I'm running my knoweldge of of what I *used* to do, more than what I'm actually doing right now. :)

Most of all, I do research. I read every book I can get ahold of on weaponry, and read several weapon & armour forums.

[Spiryt]

Yo... :smallamused:

I only have one question, and this thread looks good for this.

This (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=6397). It looks a bit like a tracian falx, or maybe fauchard with very short handle.

I've heard about such inventions few times, but never heard any details.

Somebody knows anything more about it? More iconography, any books about it? Like you see, art is supposed to be XIII cent.

[Matthew]

That is an interesting representation. I have seen a number of swords in medieval manuscripts with inward facing curves, but this is the first short hafted pole arm version I have seen. Could just be a bill hook, though, I guess. Here are some manuscript illuminations of inward curving swords:


http://racer.kb.nl/pregvn/MIMI/MIMI_KA20/MIMI_KA20_213V_MIN_A-C.JPG

http://racer.kb.nl/pregvn/MIMI/MIMI_KA20/MIMI_KA20_158R_MIN_A-C.JPG

http://racer.kb.nl/pregvn/MIMI/MIMI_KA20/MIMI_KA20_163V_MIN_A-C.JPG


And here is a short hafted pole arm with an outward facing curve:


http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10va&b.gif

[Spiryt]

Those things have swordlike guards and pommels... Freaky.

And I've seen Maciejowski's Bible thing many times. And indeed no one seems to know much about it...

It looks like a glaive. Only with big blade and sword lenght grip. And it doesn't really seem to have curve at all - only taper to the point. It's spine seems perfectly straight.

[Matthew]

Indeed, just a short hafted pole arm, I think. Either that or the illustrator was having a hard time imagining a guy being cut in half by a normal sword. That particular short hafted glaive turns up again in the the Maciejowski bible if I recall correctly. [edit] Ah, just something very like it:


http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf10/otm10ra&b.gif


It also has parallels in the various falchion like pole arms that turn up from time to time:


http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf3/otm3rd.gif

http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/images/maciejowski/leaf3/otm3va.gif


The swords with an inward curve very much put me in mind of the ancient falcata, but that particular manuscript has all kinds of interesting swords in it.

[Spiryt]

Either that or the illustrator was having a hard time imagining a guy being cut in half by a normal sword.


I think that author is generally imagining few things here, so they're not to be treated literally. To name :

- cleft mail.
- helm being cut
- two handed weapon on horse ( now, that's technically possible, but seems rather impractical)

If acording to him one handed sword is able to cleave helmet and skull, I can't see why something special should be needed to cleave a mail. Both seem very unlikely.

[Matthew]

I don't think author has any problems imagining anything, as generally few things here seem to be products of imagination :

- cleft mail.
- helm being cut
- two handed weapon on horse ( now, that's technically possible, but seems rather impractical)

Heh, heh. I know. He's very much illustrating in the epic style, these scenes being motifs of the various gesta. Indeed, the Middle English Richard Coeur de Lyon has Richard chopping Saladin's son in half whilst on horseback. Still, it is a very interesting choice of weapon from the illuminator. My feeling is that he has seen something like this in real life or in another book. As I say, though, it certainly has analogues in the falchion like short hafted pole arms elsewhere illuminated in the manuscript.

[Fhaolan]

Yo... :smallamused:

I only have one question, and this thread looks good for this.

This (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=6397). It looks a bit like a tracian falx, or maybe fauchard with very short handle.

I've heard about such inventions few times, but never heard any details.

Somebody knows anything more about it? More iconography, any books about it? Like you see, art is supposed to be XIII cent.

That looks like a bill hook type thingy to me. Basically a weaponized version of a pruning hook. There are some seriously freaky looking weapons in tapestries and paintings though, many of which no physical versions have been found.

[J.Gellert]

Is there a good site with information on historical use of shields?

For example, was there a size limitation for cavalry shields? Did warriors really use them to bash each other around a lot?

[Yora]

An info I got on a similar thread on a german forum said that there was never anyone who used spiked shields.
Using an opportunity to bash the shield against an oponents head, I think in the heat of battle, that's quite likely, but I have no source on that.

[Swordguy]

Is there a good site with information on historical use of shields?

For example, was there a size limitation for cavalry shields? Did warriors really use them to bash each other around a lot?

What kind of shield? When?

For example, Viking Age shield is is notated to some degree here: Hurstwic Sword & Shield Technique (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_technique.htm)

However, unarmored Sword & Buckler use is detailed in MS I.33 (here (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm) and here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm)) and is very different from larger shield use or even the much-later Rapier & Buckler techniques described by such persons as Salvadore Fabris.

For the differences, watch these two videos:
Hamaborg Viking Sword & Shield I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWSTx0tZHCU&feature=related)
MS I.33 in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pJvV4mC4bw&feature=related)

Both show shield use, but they're quite different.

[Matthew]

Been following the What can you do with a long sword? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6359127) thread the past few days, and came across this:





Attaching importance to the names of D&D weapons is not useful... "Longsword" just means "one-handed double-edged sword" (arming sword, viking sword, spatha, sidesword, katana).

Is katana one handed or double edged? :smalltongue: :smallwink:

EDIT: Off too "Real word - weapons" with this ?

Contrary to appearances I am not going to ask about this specific point, it just prompted me to ask other people's opinions on a current project. In the near future, my girlfriend is going to translate Orcs' Nest (a short introductory module and quick start rules booklet I wrote for OSRIC, a simulacrum of first edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons) into Japanese (just for fun really). She has a Japanese translation of B2 Keep on the Borderland for reference. Now to the question...

In all the Japanese museums I have been to the "katana" displays are always translated as "long sword", which makes a lot of sense considering their "dagger/short/long/really long" system. However, when translating back to Japanese [e.g. D&D "long sword"] she thinks it will be better to just phonetically write "long sword" in Japanese characters (which is what they do in B2, and what is often done for foreign words being translated into Japanese). I am undecided, but it seems to me that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... on the other hand, a katana is more like a western "long sword" than an actual D&D long sword, being primarily two handed.

Opinions?

[Storm Bringer]

so the Japanese have a word for any of the many types of one handed Chinese Swords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_sword)? Do they use the Chinese names for those swords? In Japanese works set in a 'western' setting, what words do the Japanese use for the swords?

if we can answer those questions (particularly the last one), we'll get the answer we're looking for.

[Matthew]

Do the Japanese have a word for any of the many types of one handed Chinese Swords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_sword)? Do they use the Chinese names for those swords? In Japanese works set in a 'western' setting, what words do the Japanese use for the swords?

if we can answer those questions (particularly the last one), we'll get the answer we're looking for.

Ah, well, it is a bit different with Chinese because of the shared character basis. I would be willing to bet they write them as the Chinese write them, but I'll ask my girlfriend.

[Storm Bringer]

more than likely, i agree. but i think my last question is more relevant: in Japanese works set in Europe (or a fantasy version of Europe), what do the Japanese call the swords being used? if they use katana to describe western swords, then you can safely do the same. if they use some other word, it might be worth using that.

[J.Gellert]

What kind of shield? When?

For example, Viking Age shield is is notated to some degree here: Hurstwic Sword & Shield Technique (http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/viking_sword_technique.htm)

However, unarmored Sword & Buckler use is detailed in MS I.33 (here (http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm) and here (http://www.thearma.org/essays/SwordandBuckler.htm)) and is very different from larger shield use or even the much-later Rapier & Buckler techniques described by such persons as Salvadore Fabris.

For the differences, watch these two videos:
Hamaborg Viking Sword & Shield I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWSTx0tZHCU&feature=related)
MS I.33 in action (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pJvV4mC4bw&feature=related)

Both show shield use, but they're quite different.

Any shield, and any time from 800BC to 1500AD. The more I can find, the better. The Viking link was useful but if anyone has anything that focuses on practical use of shields it'd be even better.

[Tsotha-lanti]

In all the Japanese museums I have been to the "katana" displays are always translated as "long sword", which makes a lot of sense considering their "dagger/short/long/really long" system. However, when translating back to Japanese [e.g. D&D "long sword"] she thinks it will be better to just phonetically write "long sword" in Japanese characters (which is what they do in B2, and what is often done for foreign words being translated into Japanese). I am undecided, but it seems to me that what is good for the goose is good for the gander... on the other hand, a katana is more like a western "long sword" than an actual D&D long sword, being primarily two handed.

Now that was a brainfart.

Isn't "ken" Japanese for sword? AFAIK "katana" and "tachi" are specific types of sword. I have no clue if a "katana" is part of a class of swords with its own name in Japanese. Weapon terminology typically being what it is... (Though I expect in Japan the terminology remained much more alive and in use.)

I don't know if it's useful to classify a katana as a "long sword" (other than in D&D terms; sufficient equivalency, really, unless you want to go scimitar for the 18-20/x2)... it depends on your context and what you're using words to mean.

[Fortinbras]

An info I got on a similar thread on a german forum said that there was never anyone who used spiked shields.
Using an opportunity to bash the shield against an oponents head, I think in the heat of battle, that's quite likely, but I have no source on that.

The Scots had spiked shields. They used the spike to help them hook enemy pole arms (and later bayonets) and yank them out of the way allowing them to stab the man using the polearm with out feer of him parrying or stabbing them back.

[Storm Bringer]

A question for you guys to chew on, to which i think we won't get a consensus on:

When, approximately, would you say close order drill as a valid battlefield tatic became obsolete?

to elaborate:

in 1814, everyone marched and fought in close order, shoulder to shoulder. While Light Infantry could and did fight successfully in skirmish lines, they still needed the heavy, formed infantry to hide behind/fall back on when threatened by cavalry.

In 1914, however, close order drill was clearly suicide in the face of modern firepower, and everyone at the time recognized this, and fought in open order .

what's not clear to me, however, is when this major change in tactics occurred.

so, when would you put the turning point?

[J.Gellert]

I think it was during the American Revolution that irregular light infantry/snipers were proven to be effective against lockstep formation in actual warfare. But the larger battles were still fought in lines...

(Of course snipers were first used during an earlier French/German war but it didn't go too well)

You say that in 1814 people needed infantry lines, but during the Greek Revolution, 1821, shoulder-to-shoulder was practically nonexistant.

I guess it depends on the location and the combatants. Tactics didn't change everywhere at the same time, but in different parts of the world at different dates, as demanded by circumstances...

[Matthew]

More than likely, I agree. but I think my last question is more relevant: in Japanese works set in Europe (or a fantasy version of Europe), what do the Japanese call the swords being used? if they use katana to describe western swords, then you can safely do the same. if they use some other word, it might be worth using that.

I suspect they do the same as in B2, which is to write "long sword" phonetically. There are at least two types of Japanese script (going off memory here), one that uses Chinese characters and another that is used to write sounds. The two scripts are typically mixed together in modern usage.



Isn't "ken" Japanese for sword? AFAIK "katana" and "tachi" are specific types of sword. I have no clue if a "katana" is part of a class of swords with its own name in Japanese. Weapon terminology typically being what it is... (Though I expect in Japan the terminology remained much more alive and in use.)

Ah, well, basically in Japanese the same characters can be read differently, depending on context, so:

katana (刀)
nihontō (日本刀) = Japanese sword

chokutō (直刀) = straight(?) sword

koyari (小槍) = short spear
ōyari (大槍) = long spear

hankyū (半弓) = half bow
kokyū/shokyū(?) (小弓) = short bow
daikyū (大弓) = long bow

tantō (短刀) = dagger (general)
shōtō (小刀) = short sword (general, includes kodachi, wakizashi, etcetera)
daitō (大刀) = long sword (general, includes tachi, katana, etcetera)

kodachi (小太刀) = small sword (specific type, i.e. small tachi)
tachi (太刀) = big sword (specific type)
ōdachi (大太刀) = great big sword (specific type)
nodachi (野太刀) = field sword (specific type)

tsurugi (剣) = Chinese jian
ken (剣) = sword [i.e. same character as tsurugi]
ken (拳​) = fist

In Chinese:

jian (劍) = sword
shuangshou jian (雙劍) = two handed sword
dao (刀) = sabre/knife
dadao (大刀) = big knife/long sabre [i.e. großes messer]



I don't know if it's useful to classify a katana as a "long sword" (other than in D&D terms; sufficient equivalence, really, unless you want to go scimitar for the 18-20/x2)... it depends on your context and what you're using words to mean.

As I understand it, katana and tachi get translated as "long sword" in museum collections because they are daitō (大刀), and that is pretty much the literal translation. The question, here, of course is whether the reverse translation is suitable or not, which is to say:

koyari (小槍) = short spear
ōyari (大槍) = long spear

kokyū/shokyū(?) (小弓) = short bow
daikyū (大弓) = long bow

shōtō (小刀) = short sword
daitō (大刀) = long sword

Maybe it would be easier just to drop the short/long aspect and go with "bow" (弓), "spear" (槍), "sword" (剣), "sabre" (刀), etcetera.

[Thane of Fife]

A question for you guys to chew on, to which i think we won't get a consensus on:

When, approximately, would you say close order drill as a valid battlefield tatic became obsolete?

what's not clear to me, however, is when this major change in tactics occurred.

so, when would you put the turning point?

Hmm. As far as I am aware, close order really began to disappear around the American Civil War and the European equivalent in the Crimea, although the British continued to use such even in the Boer Wars, though they were devastated when they did so. So I'd say that such tactics were obsoleted probably in the mid-to-late 1800s.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Any speculation as to what was the reason? Was it evolution of tactics (i.e. "use close formation against [better new tactic], get slaughtered") or weaponry (i.e. "use close formation against clip-loading bolt-action rifles or machineguns, get slaughtered") or what? Faster-firing weapons really seem like they'd spell the doom of the close formation.

[Thane of Fife]

Any speculation as to what was the reason? Was it evolution of tactics (i.e. "use close formation against [better new tactic], get slaughtered") or weaponry (i.e. "use close formation against clip-loading bolt-action rifles or machineguns, get slaughtered") or what? Faster-firing weapons really seem like they'd spell the doom of the close formation.

I'm going to suggest that it was the rifle, and that, to some extent, it eliminated the need for close order. As I understand, one musket isn't that deadly, so they need to be used in volleys to be effective. Perhaps the rifle eliminated that to an extent, allowing individuals in loose formation to fight effectively, and making massed fire so deadly that attacking into it was too difficult.

I believe that rifles also proved very effective against cavalry, which would have meant that units had less of a need to form up to repel cavalry attacks, as in the Napoleonic Wars.

The machine gun would have made things even worse.

That's mostly speculation though, based on what was going on at the time.

[Yora]

The machine gun would have made things even worse.
It did. Probably the most extreme revolution of modern warfare.

The american civil war had trenches. And when one side entrenches its troops, the ground in the surrounding area will often get severely blasted by artillery shells. One you get some decent rain, I think you can't do cavalry charges anymore and even close formations on foot would probably be very difficult to maintain.
Hard to say when things really changed, but as said the American Civil war and the Crimean war were the first "modern wars", so the changes must allready have started some years before that.

[Mike_G]

Close order drill only becomes a bad idea when you face decent rifles, and even moreso, machineguns and artillery.

It makes controlling your troops much easier, bolsters morale for each man to have comrades close by, and gives a big advantage in melee over looser formations. So, it's almost always better until the enemy can shoot it to pieces. It's much harder to train men to co-ordinate and function in dispersed, light infantry tactics, until it becomes necessary.

So, once an army started to face modern firearms, they soon abandoned close order formations in combat. It's not so much the era as the enemy. Better to fight the Zulu in 1879 in close order than open order, but better to fight Buford's brigade armed with repeating carbines and modern artillery in 1863 in open order.

[Dervag]

You say that in 1814 people needed infantry lines, but during the Greek Revolution, 1821, shoulder-to-shoulder was practically nonexistant.Yes, because the training and doctrine of both sides left a fair amount to be desired. The Greeks were scrambling just to put guns in hands, and the Turks were far behind the curve- look at how easily Napoleon defeated the Egyptian army at the Battle of the Pyramids.

I'd say that close-order drill first became non-essential in the sense of "our army can plausibly hope to live without it" with the invention of the Minie ball, but that it first became [/i]counterproductive[/i] when your enemy got its first reliable breech-loading rifles. However, close-order drill remained useful until the invention of magazine rifles and second-generation machine guns if your opponent had you greatly outnumbered and was mostly armed with melee weapons.
_______


I'm going to suggest that it was the rifle, and that, to some extent, it eliminated the need for close order. As I understand, one musket isn't that deadly, so they need to be used in volleys to be effective. Perhaps the rifle eliminated that to an extent, allowing individuals in loose formation to fight effectively, and making massed fire so deadly that attacking into it was too difficult.I'd disagree slightly. Bunching up doesn't make your inaccurate guns more effective, and it greatly improves the effect of an enemy's inaccurate guns. Open-order tactics were always favored for gun combat, even as early as the 1600s. The problem was that as long as guns had an effective range of no more than fifty to a hundred meters and took twenty seconds to reload, any determined force could turn a gunfight into a swordfight more or less at will. Unless you had a major advantage in terrain that kept the enemy from getting to bayonet range, you needed close order tactics to defend yourself against melee attack.


It did. Probably the most extreme revolution of modern warfare.

The american civil war had trenches. And when one side entrenches its troops, the ground in the surrounding area will often get severely blasted by artillery shells. One you get some decent rain, I think you can't do cavalry charges anymore and even close formations on foot would probably be very difficult to maintain.Ah, but during the rest of the nineteenth century, most warfare still wasn't trench warfare. Cavalry are not useful in trench warfare, but they are extremely useful in the field, especially when trained in dragoon tactics using infantry weapons.

It wasn't until mechanized forces became significantly faster than cavalry that cavalry truly became obsolete altogether.

[Swordguy]

I'd postulate that one of the primary reasons for close-order maneuvers on the part of armies is the issue of command and control. When your C2 radius is largely determined by how far you can yell (or see signal flags through the smoke) you need to keep people very close together to enable any sort of maneuver or coordination by the formation.

It wasn't until weapons got so a) lethal, b) accurate, and c) rapid-firing as to make close-order drill actively suicidal that commanders ditched it, with predictable consequences - there were a LOT of battles in WWI and early WWII where the inability of units to communicate led directly to massive casualty counts and lost battles. Note the emergence of the radio set to aid in C2 VERY soon after.

(Note: I'm sure that it's a combination of everything mentioned that actually did it, decisions don't exist in a vaccum. This is just one factor that hasn't been mentioned yet.)

[Thane of Fife]

I'd disagree slightly. Bunching up doesn't make your inaccurate guns more effective, and it greatly improves the effect of an enemy's inaccurate guns. Open-order tactics were always favored for gun combat, even as early as the 1600s. The problem was that as long as guns had an effective range of no more than fifty to a hundred meters and took twenty seconds to reload, any determined force could turn a gunfight into a swordfight more or less at will. Unless you had a major advantage in terrain that kept the enemy from getting to bayonet range, you needed close order tactics to defend yourself against melee attack.

Tactically speaking, the purpose of firepower (and most combat, really) isn't so much to destroy the enemy as to rout or disrupt them. Firing in a volley allows the concentration of fire over a shorter period of time, making it easier to break the enemies' spirits and send them running. Presumably, it's easier to fire volleys within a close-order formation than it is to do so in open order.


Also worth noting is that I believe that the exploding cannonball came into use somewhere in the mid-1800s, and that can't have been good for close order, either.

[Storm Bringer]

well, a Interesting set of answers, I thank you.

I think, after some mulling over this while on a LONG train ride, that the answer is related to firepower, with elements of the rest affecting it as well.

really, until the introduction of more capable firearms than the smooth bore flintlocks of the Napoleonic era, it wasn't possible for a unit to defend it's frontage with firepower alone against a enemy determined to close to melee. If they had the motivation, courage, and willingness to accept the losses, a foe could advance though musket fire and get into swords reach (for example, the Jacobites in the 1740's, who repeatedly closed to melee over open ground while taking volley fire). However, When Picket tried to charge over open ground at Gettysburg, his command was shot to pieces (and he knew that it would happen, as well).

once you could put rounds out accurately enough and in sufficient numbers to stop a charge form connecting, you no longer needed to stand shoulder to shoulder, but could spread out and assume a more loose formation, to minimize the losses to incoming fire.

anyway, a new question ha occurred to my over fertile mind:

how effective would modern body Armour be against the very large caliber rounds of the past?

I'm led to believe that the American Civil war was fought with weapons of around .50cal, and while obviously they'd lack the power of .50 BMG round, and would have fairly poor penetration for thier size, I'd imagine they'd still carry a hell of a kick.

[ImmortalAer]

how effective would modern body Armour be against the very large caliber rounds of the past?

I'm led to believe that the American Civil war was fought with weapons of around .50cal, and while obviously they'd lack the power of .50 BMG round, and would have fairly poor penetration for thier size, I'd imagine they'd still carry a hell of a kick.

They were solid shot, as well, instead of flattening like modern rounds. So I'm not sure how it works out.

And a cannonball... would kill you straight through it.

[Raum]

how effective would modern body Armour be against the very large caliber rounds of the past? Probably very effective. Remember two things, energy is mass times velocity and penetration relies on maintaining cohesion through impact - deforming and shattering bullets scatters energy.

To the best of my knowledge, blackpowder weapons were subsonic. Consequently they'll have less energy than a modern rifle of similar caliber. Minie balls were also unjacketed lead which allows deformation and shattering on impact. Extremely destructive when applied to flesh and bone but it applies the force across a larger area / multiple areas which leads to loss of penetration against armor.

[firechicago]

When, approximately, would you say close order drill as a valid battlefield tatic became obsolete?

to elaborate:

in 1814, everyone marched and fought in close order, shoulder to shoulder. While Light Infantry could and did fight successfully in skirmish lines, they still needed the heavy, formed infantry to hide behind/fall back on when threatened by cavalry.

In 1914, however, close order drill was clearly suicide in the face of modern firepower, and everyone at the time recognized this, and fought in open order .

I think "somewhere between 1815 and 1914" basically sums it up.

To clarify: It's not like generals woke up one morning and declared "close order drill is now obsolete!" Close order drill was still a definite part of military doctrine even into WWI. What changed was the prevalence of its use, the situations in which it was prescribed and officers' optimism about its prospects of success, and all of these things changed very gradually.

I would also distinguish between close order drill on the tactical offensive and defensive.

On the defensive close order drill provided three things: cohesion and morale, concentrated firepower, and a wall of bayonets which made cavalry charges all but impossible without first disrupting the formation. Cohesion and morale became irrelevant as the 1830s and 40s brought shrapnel, accurate rifled artillery and percussion shells which could turn a stationary close formation into a bloody smear from many hundreds of yards away. At the same time, the accuracy and range of rifled musketry was making the need for concentrated firepower less pressing and the prospects for a successful cavalry charge against even troops in open order quite dismal indeed.

On the offensive side close order drill had the same benefits to cohesion and morale but was focussed more on delivering as many men as quickly as possible into an enemy position. Here it hung on a little longer, as a moving formation was slightly less vulnerable to artillery fire, and with muzzle-loading weapons it was both harder for a defender to destroy advancing formations and harder for an attacker to force a defender to retreat without resorting to the bayonet. Pickett's charge is often cited as the end of close-order tactics, but Pickett's charge was carried out under the worst possible conditions, and the fact that both sides continued to use close order in this way indicates that while the technique was nowhere near as effective as it had been for Napoleon, there still was no substitute. Even in the Franco-Prussian War, the first war fought with breech-loaders, superior Prussian gunnery managed to give the close order drill a last gasp, as Prussian units were able to dislodge French infantry whose artillery had been silenced and men decimated by Prussian artillery.

[13_CBS]

I suspect they do the same as in B2, which is to write "long sword" phonetically. There are at least two types of Japanese script (going off memory here), one that uses Chinese characters and another that is used to write sounds. The two scripts are typically mixed together in modern usage.



Just as an FYI, it's actually 3: Kanji (imported Chinese characters), Hiragana (for particles and adding onto Kanji to form proper grammar) and Katakana (for expressing onomatopoeias, certain names, and foreign loan words, of which there are many). Hiragana and Katakana are the phonetic scripts, and your girlfriend will likely be using Katakana, which, again, is used for expressing/indicating foreign words.

Does your girlfriend have access to Japanese scripts of western fiction? She check those.

[Matthew]

Just as an FYI, it's actually 3: Kanji (imported Chinese characters), Hiragana (for particles and adding onto Kanji to form proper grammar) and Katakana (for expressing onomatopoeias, certain names, and foreign loan words, of which there are many). Hiragana and Katakana are the phonetic scripts, and your girlfriend will likely be using Katakana, which, again, is used for expressing/indicating foreign words.

Does your girlfriend have access to Japanese scripts of western fiction? She check those.

Yeah, I thought there were three, I just couldn't recall the names or the difference between hiragana and katakana. I am pretty sure from what she is saying that the majority of translated western fiction uses katakana, but the problem is that D&D terms like "short X" and "long Y" are not likely to appear. As I say, in B2 and the Japanese 3.0 PHB the weapon names are written phonetically, but I think it is a pretty poor aesthetic. She's a professional translator, so she knows better what she is doing than I, but on the other hand she isn't a weapons or D&D terminology specialist...

[Fhaolan]

how effective would modern body Armour be against the very large caliber rounds of the past?

I'm led to believe that the American Civil war was fought with weapons of around .50cal, and while obviously they'd lack the power of .50 BMG round, and would have fairly poor penetration for thier size, I'd imagine they'd still carry a hell of a kick.

Yay! Something I did test once, so I have practical knowledge. :smallsmile:

Here's the thing, relative to the average modern bullets, blackpowder amunition tend to be very heavy, but slow, and have less kinetic energy. Part of the innovations of modern guns is getting more energy out of the propellent (by using more enthusiastic gunpowder types) and getting that energy into moving the bullet (by having a more sealed system that can withstand the energies involved). Depending on the range you're shot at, if you're wearing a simple kevlar vest (without the optional steel plates) you can still get knocked about due the kinetic energy transfered but the ball is unlikely to penetrate. It's likely you will be well bruised of course, but not as much as being hit with a modern high speed round. Range makes a bigger diffence to blackpowder balls than it does to modern ammo, as they are heavier and slower to begin with. They tend to slow down even more over distance, unless of course they were shot ballistic in the first place.

If you're wearing anything like a artillery suit that's made to withstand lots of shrapnel and the like, blackpowder balls are well within the range of stuff the suit is *designed* to deal with.

Now the interesting thing is that supposedly an arrow will go straight through a normal kevlar vest. However, I didn't find that to be true when I tested it. I was a chemical engineer at the time, and some people I went to University with who were working at DuPont (who makes Kevlar). I asked them what was going on. They told me that at one point Kevlar *did* have an issue with cutting, and that knives and arrows would go straight through. However, they've reformulated the fabric since then and now it is far, far more resistant to cutting.. Which is why you now see Kevlar gloves and the like for butchers to replace the old sharkmail gloves they used to wear. So older Kevlar vests and the like are quite different from more modern ones, and you have to be careful what you get ahold of.

[13_CBS]

As I say, in B2 and the Japanese 3.0 PHB the weapon names are written phonetically, but I think it is a pretty poor aesthetic. She's a professional translator, so she knows better what she is doing than I, but on the other hand she isn't a weapons or D&D terminology specialist...

I don't suppose there are any archaeological texts or fencing manuals (the kind ARMA would study) available in Japanese? I'm no translator either, and I've only taken a year of Japanese in college (though I read and watch lots of Japanese cartoons and comics :smallredface:), but if such things are available they could be used as a decent reference source.

And I agree with you on the poor aesthetics part. Due to Japanese being phonetically crippled compared to English, you'll have words like "long sword" becoming "rongu sōdo", which makes me cringe somewhat. :smallfrown:

[Fortinbras]

Yay! Something I did test once, so I have practical knowledge. :smallsmile:

Here's the thing, relative to the average modern bullets, blackpowder amunition tend to be very heavy, but slow, and have less kinetic energy. Part of the innovations of modern guns is getting more energy out of the propellent (by using more enthusiastic gunpowder types) and getting that energy into moving the bullet (by having a more sealed system that can withstand the energies involved). Depending on the range you're shot at, if you're wearing a simple kevlar vest (without the optional steel plates) you can still get knocked about due the kinetic energy transfered but the ball is unlikely to penetrate. It's likely you will be well bruised of course, but not as much as being hit with a modern high speed round. Range makes a bigger diffence to blackpowder balls than it does to modern ammo, as they are heavier and slower to begin with. They tend to slow down even more over distance, unless of course they were shot ballistic in the first place.

If you're wearing anything like a artillery suit that's made to withstand lots of shrapnel and the like, blackpowder balls are well within the range of stuff the suit is *designed* to deal with.

Now the interesting thing is that supposedly an arrow will go straight through a normal kevlar vest. However, I didn't find that to be true when I tested it. I was a chemical engineer at the time, and some people I went to University with who were working at DuPont (who makes Kevlar). I asked them what was going on. They told me that at one point Kevlar *did* have an issue with cutting, and that knives and arrows would go straight through. However, they've reformulated the fabric since then and now it is far, far more resistant to cutting.. Which is why you now see Kevlar gloves and the like for butchers to replace the old sharkmail gloves they used to wear. So older Kevlar vests and the like are quite different from more modern ones, and you have to be careful what you get ahold of.

In a similar vein what is modern kevlar with the metal plate supposed to be able to withstand. My uncle who was in the airforce says that most body armor is for protection against flak and not bullets. Does anyone have any slightly more specififc info reguarding this?

[Tsotha-lanti]

In a similar vein what is modern kevlar with the metal plate supposed to be able to withstand. My uncle who was in the airforce says that most body armor is for protection against flak and not bullets. Does anyone have any slightly more specififc info reguarding this?

Wikipedia does. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_armor#Performance_standards) That's the basics - body armor types and what they will stop, in theory.

[Swordguy]

In a similar vein what is modern kevlar with the metal plate supposed to be able to withstand. My uncle who was in the airforce says that most body armor is for protection against flak and not bullets. Does anyone have any slightly more specififc info reguarding this?

If he was in the military pre-Gulf War, than he's correct. Older body armor was for protection against large, irregularly-shaped, and slow-moving pieces of shrapnel (whether from grenades, actual anti-air flak, or spalling from an aircraft/helicopter's interior).

However, modern body armor is rather effective against most personal arms. Both the Interceptor Body Armor (IBA; the current US Army standard) and Dragon Skin Body Armor use layered ceramic plates inside a kevlar shell to protect against enemy fire - they stopped using metal plates after Vietnam. An IBA uses a single plate that slips into a pocket in both the front and back of the armor, and Dragon Skin uses several small plates essentially identical in concept to D&D Scale Mail.

The advantages of the IBA (chest, shoulders, upper arm, groin protection) is that the current logistic system is set up to handle it, it has lower manufacturing and support costs, if your plate gets hit you can simply pull it out and slip a new one in in the field, it's more flexible at the waist than Dragon Skin, and it's essentially "soldier-proof". However, the plates it mounts are only rated to take 2-3 hits each from calibers up to about .308, it has essentially no protection on the sides of the body, and it's much more bulky (when equipped with the add-on kit that protects the groin, shoulders, and upper arms) than Dragon Skin.

The advantages of Dragon Skin are that it's overall more protective than the IBA - with full-torso coverage and each plate of a few hundred, rated to take a single hit from up to a .308 round, but the odds of taking more than one bullet in a given plate are incredibly low. However, it's more expensive, has no logistic network to support it, is less flexible at the waist, prone to technical issues (oblique hits on the sides of the plates can strip off long chains of plates resulting in huge coverage gaps, the glue that holds it together is prone to breaking down in 100+ degree temperatures), and requires a full rebuilt/replacement after it's been hit; there's no capability to make field repairs.

For reference, it's the logistic reasons why the military hasn't adopted Dragon Skin. It doesn't offer enough of a protective increase to justify the MASSIVE expense and effort of retooling their support and repair network to handle Dragon Skin.

Both are quite effective at stopping fire up mid-to-low caliber, and since the largest commonly-used caliber is the 7.62 round out of the AK-47 (and everyone else using smaller calibers for their battle rifles), it's good against all commonly-carried small arms. A .50 BMG or like anti-material rounds will go right through it, of course, but there's no way a man can carry the armor right now to defend against it. Neither can many vehicles, for that matter.

[13_CBS]

Just to toss in my 2 cp, I remember seeing a video of a soldier in Iraq/Afghanistan getting shot in the torso by an AK47 (his assailants were insurgents hiding in a car across the street--they were also the cameramen). The soldier was knocked down flat on his back and lay still for a moment, before he got back on his feet and scurried for cover.

Given that AK 47s are more powerful than M16s up to a certain range, that's rather good protection.

[Norsesmithy]

There are several standards for body armor floating around, the National Institute of Justice probably has the most comprehensive set of standards.

Their scale is composed of levels, 1-4.

The short version is that common vests are level i, lvl IIa, lvl II, lvl IIIa, lvl III, and lvl IV.

Levels 2a-3a are all soft vests, designed to stop pistol rounds, and levels 3 and 4 are a combination of hard armor plate and aramid fiber based soft armor.

The standard for level I requires that it stop a cast lead .38 special bullet travelling 850 FPS or .22 LR at 1050 FPS. Vietnam era flack jackets are Lvl I protection, or there abouts. I don't know of anyone who sells new lvl 1 vests any more, and I don't think anyone would buy them if they did.

Level 2 A is required to protect against 9mm FMJ rounds at 1090 FPS, and .357 magnum soft points at 1250 fps.

Level 2 is supposed to stop 9mm FMJ at 1175 fps, and .357 mag soft points at 1395 fps.

Level 3a is supposed to stop 9mm FMJ at 1400 fps, and .44 mag lead wadcutters at 1400 fps.

Level 3 hard body armor is supposed to stop 6 rounds of .308 at 2750 FPS.

Level 4 is supposed to stop one M2 Armor Piercing round of .30-06 at 2850 FPS.

The Army's current Interceptor plate and vest system would be ceritified by the NIJ standards as level 3, but it is more durable and more protective than the minimum level 3 standard.

This was, of course, just a quick and dirty primer, the text of the standard is here (PDF WARNING) (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/223054.pdf).

The thing about the lack of body armor in past wars, was that until the mid 80s, body armor that could protect you from rifle rounds was too heavy and too bulky to be a practical item for a soldier to wear on patrol.

So they gave him a vest designed to protect him from fragments and pistol rounds, because that is better than a stick in the eye.

[Norsesmithy]

Just to toss in my 2 cp, I remember seeing a video of a soldier in Iraq/Afghanistan getting shot in the torso by an AK47 (his assailants were insurgents hiding in a car across the street--they were also the cameramen). The soldier was knocked down flat on his back and lay still for a moment, before he got back on his feet and scurried for cover.

Given that AK 47s are more powerful than M16s up to a certain range, that's rather good protection.

Actually, the M4 and M16 have better performance against armor at all ranges, compared to the AK47.

But IIRC, the soldier in that video was shot with a PSL, a sniper rifle in 7.62x54r, a round much more potent than the 7.62x39 used in the AK or the 5.56 used in the M16/M4.


The advantages of Dragon Skin are that it's overall more protective than the IBA - with full-torso coverage and each plate of a few hundred, rated to take a single hit from up to a .308 round,
Actually, the Dragon Skin armor covers LESS of your torso than Interceptor. I tried both a gun show, the Dragon Skin large covers 1-2 inches less of your belly, and has larger gaps by your shoulders compared to the Interceptor large.

The main advantage of the Dragon Skin is that it is a true lvl 4, unlike the Interceptor.

I don't think that that makes up for it dissolving in diesel fuel though...

[Matthew]

I don't suppose there are any archaeological texts or fencing manuals (the kind ARMA would study) available in Japanese? I'm no translator either, and I've only taken a year of Japanese in college (though I read and watch lots of Japanese cartoons and comics :smallredface:), but if such things are available they could be used as a decent reference source.

Good question; that might well be worth looking into. I know there are Japanese academics who study Middle English, there must be some studying European arms and armour, and translating terms into Japanese. I have a feeling it will all turn out to have been done phonetically, but you never know.



And I agree with you on the poor aesthetics part. Due to Japanese being phonetically crippled compared to English, you'll have words like "long sword" becoming "rongu sōdo", which makes me cringe somewhat. :smallfrown:
Indeed, sounds awful, looks bad written in the tables, and reinforces a kind of "foreign and native" mentality where none need exist, especially considering the intention of weapon equivalency charts.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[13_CBS]

Actually, the M4 and M16 have better performance against armor at all ranges, compared to the AK47.


I thought AK47 rounds had more kinetic energy (or something like that) than M16s at close-medium ranges :smallconfused: Are AK47 bullets poor at armor penetration?



But IIRC, the soldier in that video was shot with a PSL, a sniper rifle in 7.62x54r, a round much more potent than the 7.62x39 used in the AK or the 5.56 used in the M16/M4.

Oh, was it? In any case, I think the video does a good job of demonstrating the effectiveness of Interceptors.

[Norsesmithy]

I thought AK47 rounds had more kinetic energy (or something like that) than M16s at close-medium ranges :smallconfused: Are AK47 bullets poor at armor penetration?



Oh, was it? In any case, I think the video does a good job of demonstrating the effectiveness of Interceptors.

While the AK has more kinetic energy at short ranges, it has a larger diameter bullet, so it has to use more energy for penetration than the 5.56.

It also has inferior bullet construction.

The superior bullet design and ballistic properties of the 5.56 is why it is better than the AK round at just about anything besides shooting through trees and bricks. It makes a larger wound in the target, retains energy better at long range, and punches through body armor better.

This is why Russia has switched to 5.45x39, a less energetic round than the 7.62x39, but one that is closer to 5.56x45 ballistically.

[13_CBS]

Really? Thanks for the info!

(And it's the last time I EVER trust anything Future Weapons says. :smallannoyed:)

[Swordguy]

Really? Thanks for the info!

(And it's the last time I EVER trust anything Future Weapons says. :smallannoyed:)

That;s just a good plan in general. :smallwink:

[Fortinbras]

I had an interesting expearience on the archery range this moring and I'm corious if this has ever happened to anyone else. I was getting ready to head home and I decided to shoot a couple more arrows. When I went to pull them out of the target there was a rusty old arrow head stuck on the end of one of my arrows. That's right, my arrow went straight down the socket of an old arrow head that someone left there god knows how long ago. Has anyone ever heard of this or something similar happening?

[Rasilak]

Good question; that might well be worth looking into. I know there are Japanese academics who study Middle English, there must be some studying European arms and armour, and translating terms into Japanese. I have a feeling it will all turn out to have been done phonetically, but you never know. Hm, actually my translation of the "Book of the Five Rings" refers to katana/wakizashi as long/short sword, and even calls a naginata "halberd". IMHO this isn't irritating once you get used to it and know what *he* means. So I wouldn't feel bad at all to do it the other way round and just find the most similiar japanese (or perhaps chinese) weapon.

[ImmortalAer]

That;s just a good plan in general. :smallwink:

Believe nothing you see on TV. :smallbiggrin:

[Fhaolan]

I had an interesting expearience on the archery range this moring and I'm corious if this has ever happened to anyone else. I was getting ready to head home and I decided to shoot a couple more arrows. When I went to pull them out of the target there was a rusty old arrow head stuck on the end of one of my arrows. That's right, my arrow went straight down the socket of an old arrow head that someone left there god knows how long ago. Has anyone ever heard of this or something similar happening?

It's not happened to me personally, but I have lost many an arrowhead in those standard range targets before so it's pretty reasonable.

[Construct]

...or the area between the arm and chest was covered by a round piece of metal (http://www.gradovi.net/images/author_gothic_armor.jpg) (I forget the term; I want to say rondel, but that's a dagger).Besagew. .

[Dervag]

I'd postulate that one of the primary reasons for close-order maneuvers on the part of armies is the issue of command and control. When your C2 radius is largely determined by how far you can yell (or see signal flags through the smoke) you need to keep people very close together to enable any sort of maneuver or coordination by the formation.Footnote: C2 = "Command and Control."
______


Tactically speaking, the purpose of firepower (and most combat, really) isn't so much to destroy the enemy as to rout or disrupt them. Firing in a volley allows the concentration of fire over a shorter period of time, making it easier to break the enemies' spirits and send them running. Presumably, it's easier to fire volleys within a close-order formation than it is to do so in open order.Yesbut.

The catch is that the reason you use vollies is because you're trying to end the gunfight before it turns into a knife fight. You need volley fire for the same reason you need bayonet drill- because when you get right down to it, you cannot possibly put enough lead in the air to stop a bunch of howling guys with spears from charging up to you and stabbing you to death. You need to be able to either scare them away at range (for which, as you say, vollies are a must), or beat them in hand to hand.

Once the ability to put out that much lead existed, efforts to demoralize the enemy took a different form. Vollies became largely obsolete. Instead of trying to deliver your one good shot as a crashing, all-destroying volley, you put out enough fire from far enough away that the enemy would give it up as a bad job and go try something else.
_____


I don't think that that makes up for it dissolving in diesel fuel though...Are we talking "one splash of diesel and all the plates fall off," or "do not go swimming in diesel fuel while wearing this?" Because while the former is a big deal, the latter isn't something you'd normally do anyway.
_____


I had an interesting expearience on the archery range this moring and I'm corious if this has ever happened to anyone else. I was getting ready to head home and I decided to shoot a couple more arrows. When I went to pull them out of the target there was a rusty old arrow head stuck on the end of one of my arrows. That's right, my arrow went straight down the socket of an old arrow head that someone left there god knows how long ago. Has anyone ever heard of this or something similar happening?It's bound to happen sooner or later, statistically speaking. How many arrows have you shot, roughly?

[Norsesmithy]

Are we talking "one splash of diesel and all the plates fall off," or "do not go swimming in diesel fuel while wearing this?" Because while the former is a big deal, the latter isn't something you'd normally do anyway.

In army tests, the test designed to simulate being in a vehicle that takes a hit, and is disabled, showed that the glue in the Dragon Skin armor would fail within minutes when they sprayed it with diesel enough to simulate a gas tank failure.

I don't know how much diesel they used in the tests, but I have seen pictures of a friend from Iraq after he was in a HMMV that got hit by an IED, and he looks like he just stepped out of the shower, he is so wet with fuel.

So I assume that it is a fairly good soaking.

Lots of times, people from a vehicle hit by an IED are engaged by rifle fire immediately after, so it would be very bad if your armor were to become non-functional soon after being splashed with fuel.

[Swordguy]

Footnote: C2 = "Command and Control."
_____

Typo. Meant C3 (Command, Control, & Communications), obviously. :smalltongue:




Are we talking "one splash of diesel and all the plates fall off," or "do not go swimming in diesel fuel while wearing this?" Because while the former is a big deal, the latter isn't something you'd normally do anyway.

The plates don't instantly fall off, no. But the diesel fuel DOES dissolve the glue rather quickly (as Norsesmithy said, within a few minutes). Think of it like Nail Polish Remover on paint. It takes enough to saturate the vest covering and soak through to the glue proper, but that's not all that much - a cup of fuel (measuring cup, specifically) chucked at someone will soak through in that spot where it hit and the scales will loosen up within 2-3 minutes, and may even fall out.

And, as Norsesmithy rightly pointed out, if you're getting fuel splashed on your DS from a broken fuel line, the odds are you're going to be taking rifle fire very soon afterwards. Whereas the IBA doesn't even care. All those scales are each an individual potential point of failure, whereas the IBA's single plate really can't fail.

Compare chain shirt to a breastplate - this is similar. There's a lot more stuff that can go wrong with a chain shirt, while the breastplate is pretty foolproof.

[Grynning]

Hm, actually my translation of the "Book of the Five Rings" refers to katana/wakizashi as long/short sword, and even calls a naginata "halberd". IMHO this isn't irritating once you get used to it and know what *he* means. So I wouldn't feel bad at all to do it the other way round and just find the most similiar japanese (or perhaps chinese) weapon.

Well...katana and wakizashi pretty much mean "long sword" and "short sword." Also at the time of Musashi writing that text, carrying the two together was not yet standard practice, and sword fighters used a wide variety of weapons, including straight blades. So when he's talking about them, he literally just means a long sword or a short sword. Also, Musashi would be the last guy to quibble about terminology. Book of the Five Rings is about how to win fights, not what to call things.

Edit: To put it another way, if you showed a Japanese speaker from the middle ages a European style long sword, they'd call it a katana. If you tried to correct them with "long sword," they'd go, ok, in their language, katanas are called long swords. They wouldn't call one by the English name and the other by their native word.

[Rasilak]

Well...katana and wakizashi pretty much mean "long sword" and "short sword."Yes, for certain values of "sword". I think they're more like a sabre (single-edged, curved, and optimized for cutting lightly armored opponents) than an early medieval sword (double-edged, straight, and optimized for hacking and stabbing at moderately armored opponents). But still, I agree.

[DragoonWraith]

So my Rogue is TWF'ing with a Rapier and Kukri. My knowledge of these weapons is fairly limited (a Rapier is a long, slender blade which is usually used for thrusting; a Kukri is a heavy, curved knife that is used more like a hatchet than a dagger), so my question is: How on earth does he gracefully use both at the same time? Is there any kind of fighting style where that might work? Or is it pure fantasy?

[The_JJ]

Yesbut.

The catch is that the reason you use vollies is because you're trying to end the gunfight before it turns into a knife fight. You need volley fire for the same reason you need bayonet drill- because when you get right down to it, you cannot possibly put enough lead in the air to stop a bunch of howling guys with spears from charging up to you and stabbing you to death. You need to be able to either scare them away at range (for which, as you say, vollies are a must), or beat them in hand to hand.

Once the ability to put out that much lead existed, efforts to demoralize the enemy took a different form. Vollies became largely obsolete. Instead of trying to deliver your one good shot as a crashing, all-destroying volley, you put out enough fire from far enough away that the enemy would give it up as a bad job and go try something else.


Time on Target Arty, and (sorta) MOAB bombs.

[Spiryt]

So my Rogue is TWF'ing with a Rapier and Kukri. My knowledge of these weapons is fairly limited (a Rapier is a long, slender blade which is usually used for thrusting; a Kukri is a heavy, curved knife that is used more like a hatchet than a dagger), so my question is: How on earth does he gracefully use both at the same time? Is there any kind of fighting style where that might work? Or is it pure fantasy?

D&D fighting is definetly pure fantasy, TWF is generally fantasy (save for some plays with rapier and parrying dagger, and supposedly Miyamoto Musashi),
and this what you are describing is definetly a fantasy.

If by "gracefully" you mean "Weapon Finesse" feat - then Weapon Finesse is the biggest and stupidest fantasy in this all. It's wrong on many levels.

[13_CBS]

I suppose that if you really sat down and tried, you could develop a real-world martial art that uses a rapier-like weapon and a kukri-like weapon. I have no idea how it would look like, and it'll probably need a lot of experimenting and refining to make it "competitive", but it should be possible.

In other words, Rapier + Kukri dual wielding is almost certainly fantasy, but not impossible.

[Subotei]

One other reason for using volley fire in the era of black-powder weapons was the amount of smoke produced when firing - firing all together allows a decent interval for the smoke to clear while everyone is reloading. In close order, if you fire individually, you may obscure the target for Smith and Jones next to you. Volley fire by section commencing with the section on the leeward flank was standard British practice in the late 19th century because of this.

This was obviously less of an issue for skirmishers.

[DragoonWraith]

D&D fighting is definetly pure fantasy, TWF is generally fantasy (save for some plays with rapier and parrying dagger, and supposedly Miyamoto Musashi),
and this what you are describing is definetly a fantasy.

If by "gracefully" you mean "Weapon Finesse" feat - then Weapon Finesse is the biggest and stupidest fantasy in this all. It's wrong on many levels.
By gracefully, I just meant in any kind of efficient way.

Also, Weapon Finesse as the biggest and stupidest fantasy of all? Seems quite likely to me that you would not need to be especially strong to hit someone (in general), that it would take more timing, coordination, and speed. The latter sounds more like Dexterity to me, anyhow. Yes, the fact that Armor AC is conflated with the ability to dodge does make things somewhat trickier (since hitting armor lightly is the same as missing in D&D), but there's also something to be said for making your attack in a relatively unfortified position. If anything, that Weapon Finesse is not the default seems most odd.

[Spiryt]

I suppose that if you really sat down and tried, you could develop a real-world martial art that uses a rapier-like weapon and a kukri-like weapon. I have no idea how it would look like, and it'll probably need a lot of experimenting and refining to make it "competitive", but it should be possible.

In other words, Rapier + Kukri dual wielding is almost certainly fantasy, but not impossible.

And that's true too, there's obviously nothing impossible in waving such combination around, the question of course is - what for ?



Also, Weapon Finesse as the biggest and stupidest fantasy of all? Seems quite likely to me that you would not need to be especially strong to hit someone (in general), that it would take more timing, coordination, and speed. The latter sounds more like Dexterity to me, anyhow. Yes, the fact that Armor AC is conflated with the ability to dodge does make things somewhat trickier (since hitting armor lightly is the same as missing in D&D), but there's also something to be said for making your attack in a relatively unfortified position. If anything, that Weapon Finesse is not the default seems most odd.

The fact that from whatever reason it's Dexterity or Strenght to hit, that from whatever reason kukri or short sword are "dexterous" and greatsword is not, is among other thing the reason why this is stupid fantasy.

Barbarian with 3 Dexterity is perfectly capable of hitting things with sword even though he is complete oaf.

It also creates such weird things like you described.

[13_CBS]

Also, Weapon Finesse as the biggest and stupidest fantasy of all? Seems quite likely to me that you would not need to be especially strong to hit someone (in general), that it would take more timing, coordination, and speed.

Yes, but Weapon Finesse doesn't...

1) ...let you use your Strength on top of your Dexterity for the attack roll. This seems to imply that you can use either only sheer muscle power or pure speed and skill to strike someone with a weapon. Why not both? Master fencers who study combat fencing (like ARMA folks, and probably sport fencers as well) can and will, in D&D terms, add both their Str and Dex scores to their attack rolls (and damage rolls, too).

2)...let you use any weapon for it other than light weapons, rapiers, whips, and spiked chains. This seems to imply that all other weapons (greatsword, longsword, battleaxe, etc) can't be used for anything other than brute hacking and smashing. Which is also false--the next time you tell someone skilled in German two-handed sword fencing that his weapon is incapable of being handled in a dextrous way, he'll probably laugh and proceed to shave your hair into a perfectly symmetrical mohawk with his sword, then carve his name into your shirt in neat cursive writing, all while making not even a scratch on your flesh.

(Obviously I'm exaggerating, but to say that non-light weapons can't be finessed with IRL is ludicrous and a bit insulting.)

[Spiryt]

2)...let you use any weapon for it other than light weapons, rapiers, whips, and spiked chains. This seems to imply that all other weapons (greatsword, longsword, battleaxe, etc) can't be used for anything other than brute hacking and smashing. Which is also false--the next time you tell someone skilled in German two-handed sword fencing that his weapon is incapable of being handled in a dextrous way, he'll probably laugh and proceed to shave your hair into a perfectly symmetrical mohawk with his sword, then carve his name into your shirt in neat cursive writing, all while making not even a scratch on your flesh.


To make things funnier, every lumberjack or whoever will tell you that delivering large amount of "brute force" alone takes a lot dexterity, insight and some knowledge about what you're doing.

Even really big man won't hit so hard if he doesn't move quickly and gracefully (connected with D&D "Dexterity") or doesn't know how to do it.

Of course, your can D&D say that your Barbarian is 300 pounds of muscle, and therefore hit things hard. Doesn't change the fact that if he had nice "Dexterity" at the same time, he would hit even harder. :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

Anyway, back on topic - just check Arma videos like this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi7TAQOWhKc&feature=PlayList&p=D8E2ED1BBC7E5D45&index=62&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL) (there are on youtube and their site).

Also other similar videos like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJWFlV1NCIo) (although seeing that "expert" studied at American Musical and Dramatic Academy, there can be some justified doubts about it).

Then generally assume that you will be doing similar things with kukri instead of dagger.

Of course kukris axe like shape&balance (for heavy chopping), lack of guard etc will make it less suitable for such fighting... But its strikes would be more bloody, certainly.

[Thane of Fife]

The catch is that the reason you use vollies is because you're trying to end the gunfight before it turns into a knife fight. You need volley fire for the same reason you need bayonet drill- because when you get right down to it, you cannot possibly put enough lead in the air to stop a bunch of howling guys with spears from charging up to you and stabbing you to death. You need to be able to either scare them away at range (for which, as you say, vollies are a must), or beat them in hand to hand.

Once the ability to put out that much lead existed, efforts to demoralize the enemy took a different form. Vollies became largely obsolete. Instead of trying to deliver your one good shot as a crashing, all-destroying volley, you put out enough fire from far enough away that the enemy would give it up as a bad job and go try something else.

Right. My point (as I recall - it's been a while), was that it was this increase in firepower rendering volleys obsolete which made close order less important, rather than the decrease in close combat (which I would argue was a result of this increase in firepower). In WWI, for example, there was a significant amount of melee, but people didn't fight in close order, whereas in the Boer War, the British occasionally used close order even though the Boers didn't use bayonets.

[DragoonWraith]

OK, I agree with you - the limitations on the types of weapons that might be finessed is ridiculous. I don't have any kind of martial or combat training, but I can confirm that bit about lumberjacks - I'm certainly not, but I have chopped a fair amount of wood, and just bashing it with an axe is useless. Knowing how and when to flick the wrist is where all the chopping ability comes from. Especially with heavy chopping weapons - generally you don't drive a sledgehammer, you just lift it and then direct its motion as it falls (including that crucial wrist snap)... I didn't realize what you were specifically objecting to in Weapon Finesse.

As for that video (pretty cool, btw)... yes. Rapier + Dagger, I've heard of. But exactly as you say: a Kukri is not a Dagger. Not to mention that in that video they were slashing with the Rapier more than stabbing - which makes sense overall, but does not match D&D's designation of the Rapier as a Piercing weapon.

[Spiryt]

As for that video (pretty cool, btw)... yes. Rapier + Dagger, I've heard of. But exactly as you say: a Kukri is not a Dagger. Not to mention that in that video they were slashing with the Rapier more than stabbing - which makes sense overall, but does not match D&D's designation of the Rapier as a Piercing weapon.

Uhh, actually most moves that were directed as an attack were stabs. :smallconfused: And the fact that rapier is stabbing doens't mean that it wasn't used in "slashing like" movements to deflect/control opposing weapon.

And if you want a "realistic" fight with Kukri and Rapier, you probably wouldn't find anything better. Those Renaissance techniques are real dueling stuff, so doing the same thing, with adapting it to different weapon in the other hand is the best thing to do.

Buckler and dagger were two different things, and both were used in roughly similar style with rapier as main weapon. So I guess that kukri could be adapted to, somehow.

EDIT: You may also try to learn something about Escrima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskrima). It contains fighting with the pairs of weapons, sometimes knife and a stick too. And knife like depicted is somehow closer to kukri than dagger. Stick is, on the other hand, rather unlike rapier. :smallamused:

[DragoonWraith]

Uhh, actually most moves that were directed as an attack were stabs. :smallconfused: And the fact that rapier is stabbing doens't mean that it wasn't used in "slashing like" movements to deflect/control opposing weapon.
Really? I guess I'm just not great at following the fights, or was thinking something similar to "fencing". OK. Anyway, the other point is that the dagger wasn't used often for attack, but usually for parrying - as I understand it, that's how off-hand weapons are almost universally used. Is this correct.


And if you want a "realistic" fight with Kukri and Rapier, you probably wouldn't find anything better. Those Renaissance techniques are real dueling stuff, so doing the same thing, with adapting it to different weapon in the other hand is the best thing to do.

Buckler and dagger were two different things, and both were used in roughly similar style with rapier as main weapon. So I guess that kukri could be adapted to, somehow.
This sort of goes back to what I was saying about parrying - they're used similarly because they're forming part of the defense. This is generally the case, yes?


EDIT: You may also try to learn something about Escrima (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskrima). It contains fighting with the pairs of weapons, sometimes knife and a stick too. And knife like depicted is somehow closer to kukri than dagger. Stick is, on the other hand, rather unlike rapier. :smallamused:
Interesting. I'll look into it.

Anyway, it was just a curiosity. Thanks for the links and the discussion.

[Spiryt]

Really? I guess I'm just not great at following the fights, or was thinking something similar to "fencing". OK. Anyway, the other point is that the dagger wasn't used often for attack, but usually for parrying - as I understand it, that's how off-hand weapons are almost universally used. Is this correct.

This sort of goes back to what I was saying about parrying - they're used similarly because they're forming part of the defense. This is generally the case, yes?


I'm generally a layman, but as I understand it, they're generally used for widely understand fencing - deflecting opponents weapon, binding it, controlling, striking too. In this manual (http://thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/CapoFerro/capoferro.htm) for example, two almost last figures show you actions with both weapons used to achieve strike with off hand weapon. There's more of it, certainly.

EDIT: Another attack with off hand (http://thearma.org/Manuals/NewManuals/Alfieri/05002164.jpg). Of course, in this case the attack with main weapon looks somehow, hmmm... nastier :smalltongue:. But it's easy to imagine that attack with rapier can't be done, beacuse enemy didn't let you to do so - end the off hand attack as a wounding strike, and rapier serves to allow a off hand strike.

Now certainly kukri is worse for overall "fence", but it's not useless.

EDIT: ALso, this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyōhō_Niten_Ichi-ryū) - mentioned Musashi style. I suppose that reading his works would give some insight, but anyway polish Wiki states that style uses "preparing actions with longer sword, and finishing it with shorter one" a lot.

[Dervag]

Time on Target Arty, and (sorta) MOAB bombs.To my way of thinking, the real advantage of Time on Target artillery is that you drop the greatest number of shells on the enemy before they go to ground. Once the enemy dives into foxholes, or even just flattens out on the ground they're a lot harder to kill. Hence the need to deliver a volley to maximize the amount of firepower delivered while the enemy is still vulnerable.

This is very different from the purpose of a musket volley- the morale effect of the ToT barrage is less important than the killing effect, though any weapon with a high killing effect will tend to have a high morale effect.
_____

FAE bombs and huge conventional bombs like the MOAB are a good example of trying to demoralize the enemy with overwhelmingly destructive fire, rather than trying to synchronize the fire for maximum morale effect. When applied to personal weapons, the first method produces opposite results from the second: to make your fire as destructive as possible, individual soldiers must stop and aim.

[Geddoe]

Yes, but Weapon Finesse doesn't...

1) ...let you use your Strength on top of your Dexterity for the attack roll. This seems to imply that you can use either only sheer muscle power or pure speed and skill to strike someone with a weapon. Why not both? Master fencers who study combat fencing (like ARMA folks, and probably sport fencers as well) can and will, in D&D terms, add both their Str and Dex scores to their attack rolls (and damage rolls, too).

2)...let you use any weapon for it other than light weapons, rapiers, whips, and spiked chains. This seems to imply that all other weapons (greatsword, longsword, battleaxe, etc) can't be used for anything other than brute hacking and smashing. Which is also false--the next time you tell someone skilled in German two-handed sword fencing that his weapon is incapable of being handled in a dextrous way, he'll probably laugh and proceed to shave your hair into a perfectly symmetrical mohawk with his sword, then carve his name into your shirt in neat cursive writing, all while making not even a scratch on your flesh.

(Obviously I'm exaggerating, but to say that non-light weapons can't be finessed with IRL is ludicrous and a bit insulting.)

Another post misunderstanding finesse and skill. The main problem I see people having with not being able to use weapon finesse for free is that they think Weapon Finesse is skill with the weapons. It isn't! Being skillful with any weapon is represented by your base attack bonus. Think of BAB as a skill that caps at your hd instead of hd+3, it goes up as you level, and different classes are able to advance the skill faster or slower. Most ARMA Fencers would add their combat strength bonus(a specialized subset of strength developed to add combat bonuses only, instead of the full strength benefits) to their bab.

Most coordination for weapons comes from repeated practice with the weapon, aka attempting to develop your attack bonus through real life weapon focus or increasing your base attack bonus(possibly with just that weapon in the real world). The perfectly symmetrical mohawk haircut and cursive shirt writing are from skill developed through a long relationship with the weapon(aka attack bonus), not necessarily being dextrous.

[Spiryt]

Dexterity measures hand-eye coordination, agility, reflexes, and balance

You think that fighting wix axe/spear/whatever doesn't require those? :smallconfused:

Or diferently - you think that those has no use in fighting with so called "heavy weapons"?

If so tell me, what's with the short sword that it can be used with "dexterity" - and greatsword not.

[13_CBS]

Eh...I'll let people like Swordguy call the shots on this one. Geddoe might have a point.

[Geddoe]

You think that fighting wix axe/spear/whatever doesn't require those? :smallconfused:

Or diferently - you think that those has no use in fighting?

If so tell my, what's why short sword can be used with dexterity - and greatsword not.

No, I think that repeated practice with weapons has much more influence than natural hand eye coordination. Would many of the masters be naturally gifted in dex as well? Yes, of course. But most of their skill comes from practice rather than natural grace. In fact there are probably many practitioners of many martial arts that seem clumsy outside of training or combat, but also seem very graceful and skilled in practicing their art. I know this because I have seen people like that in the karate classes I have attended.

The reason a short sword in D&D can be used with dexterity and a greatsword not? The designers wanted to give rogues a reason to use a short sword. By allowing them to add dex(an ability score many rogues focus on) to finesseable weapons instead of strength, they ensure many rogues use finesseable weapons.

Is dex useful? To a point. I might allow dex + str, bab + dex or bab + str, whichever is highest to attacks, by default, if I was trying for more realism. The idea being that at the start of your combat/adventuring career you rely on your natural grace and power to place it where you want with the force you want, but as you become more skilled, the training overshadows the natural abilities.

To clarify I have no real problem with dex bonus to many weapons. My problem is when people refer to this as being "skillful" use of the weapon, especially when comparing it to adding your strength bonus instead.

[Fortinbras]

Yes, but Weapon Finesse doesn't...

1) ...let you use your Strength on top of your Dexterity for the attack roll. This seems to imply that you can use either only sheer muscle power or pure speed and skill to strike someone with a weapon. Why not both? Master fencers who study combat fencing (like ARMA folks, and probably sport fencers as well) can and will, in D&D terms, add both their Str and Dex scores to their attack rolls (and damage rolls, too).



As a modern sport fencer I would have to say that that is probably not true, strength isn't really that important. In fact, when I to a break from fencing to wrestle for my highschool team my coach was worried that I would be muscle bound or something.

On an other note I'm interesting in trying some of the German style longsword fencing, I live in the bay area of California, does anyone have any suggestions?

[Fhaolan]

From my experience, strength *and* dexterity are very helpful in using most weapons, including rapiers and other fancy weapons. Not to say that they in any way overshadow a person's skill with that weapon.

There are some limitations that D&D does not address normally. For instance, I have a 15th century stabbing axe that is meant to be used one-handed by a horseman. It is 4lbs 12oz in weight, and 35 inches long, with a usable handle of 17 inches. In the group I used to work with, there were a total of 3 of us capable of using it one-handed, and only I was able to work with it for extended periods because I knew a trick with the curved handle after working with it so long. In short, there is a strength limitation in using the weapon. Although I had some skill, and therefore could use it longer, without my strength the weapon would have been useless.

In my experience, every weapon has a minimum strength required to use it.

However, I found that although being stronger than most of the people in my sparring group did not mean that I was more effective in hitting targets, or even in penetrating defenses, other than when my opponents were silly enough to lock weapons with me to make it a strength-vs-strength contest. (Although to be brutally honest it was more a weight-vs-strength thing as I am far heavier than I should be and my height allows me to leverage that weight. :smallbiggrin:)

I had a friend in the group who was very small and light, and relying upon speed and dexterity, chose light weapons appropriately. Yes, he made contact fairly often, but to no good effect as he was relying on his natural dexterity and was so enamoured of flashy movement that he never really gained skill in targeting. Of course, since we were sparring that didn't matter, but if we were in actual combat we would have been just as ineffective as each other. I brutishly swinging in the hopes of making contact, and him making serveral useless cuts that would little more than annoy me (until later when gangrene set in :smallsmile:).

Now someone with strength *and* dexterity would do much better naturally. But even they would have to give way to someone with actual skill.

[Rasilak]

TWF is generally fantasy (save for some plays with rapier and parrying dagger, and supposedly Miyamoto Musashi)
As I read this, I was totally going to say something about Escrima (did it for 3 years), but you noticed it yourself.
But nonetheless I think TWF as depicted in D&D is fantasy. The way I learned it, you use one weapon for parrying and distracting the enemy, while you use the other one to hit. If you're not using the Rapier/Dagger-Combo, but more equal weapons, the roles can (and do) switch constantly. So it is in no way justified that you hit less with your primary weapon, but your secondary weapon will probably never do any damage (if your weapon combo allows this distinction). I think Shadowrun does a pretty good job modelling it - you learn an off-hand-skill seperately, and can add half of the dice from this to your main weapon skill for your attack rolls, but still use range and damage of your primary weapon.
Another method is just putting so many strikes in the air that the enemy practically has to get out of the way if he doesn't want to get hit. The attacks are usually not very precise, but this is compensated by sheer mass. (This is pretty much like the monk's Flurry of Blows). I can put out something between 6 and 10 strikes in a second, and there are a lot of poeple who are faster than me, but basically it's just a drill, so I can't really react to my enemy (except for roughly choosing a target for the next strike). There are quite some different drills, and it is (within limits) possible to switch between them without stopping, but still this is nowhere as precise or controlled as single strikes.
For weapons, we use one or two rattan sticks most of the time (around 2' long, 1" thick), but we also have unarmed techniques (mainly throws, locks and disarming, but also knee and elbow techniques, low kicks and strikes with the palm and the bottom of the fist), and we use knifes (the ones depicted in the Wikipedia article are rather big, usually they're the size of an average kitchen knife), long sticks (somewhere arond 5-6'), machetes (usually the weapon in one hand and the scabbard in the other), or short wooden sticks (about the size of a pen, but 1" thick and pointed on both ends - basically they're good for boosting strikes with the bottom of the fist and help with locks).
I'd say the handling of a kukri is pretty similiar to a machete (which, in turn, is not much different from a stick - you just need to make sure that the edge points the right way), but we use nothing like a rapier.
If I had to fight with this combo, I'd probably put the rapier in my off-hand, and regularily throw in a stab to my enemies face to confuse him and force him to parry (of course, I don't complain if they hit, but I don't expect them to), while waitning for a chance to close in and give him some good whacks with the kukri. But frankly, I'd switch the rapier with a better off-hand weapon as soon as I get the chance. Perhaps I'd take a chain (nothing is better for confusing the enemy) or a sai (once you've caught the enemy's weapon, you have a great chance to hack him to pieces), or even a club/stick (expendable, and can block a lot better than a rapier).
Also, once I closed in, I might drop the rapier and use the off-hand for disarming.

[ImmortalAer]

A slightly random question...

Cannon Vs Trebuchet in the following situations...

Siege weapon vs massed infantry.
Siege weapon vs castle wall.
Siege weapon vs other siege weapon.

I'm just curious, is a massive rock falling from the sky better than a direct shot cannonball? The 'ball has velocity, kinetic energy and blackpowder, but the big T has gravity, and a 100 lb projectile...

[Spiryt]

A slightly random question...

Cannon Vs Trebuchet in the following situations...

Siege weapon vs massed infantry.
Siege weapon vs castle wall.
Siege weapon vs other siege weapon.

I'm just curious, is a massive rock falling from the sky better than a direct shot cannonball? The 'ball has velocity, kinetic energy and blackpowder, but the big T has gravity, and a 100 lb projectile...

What you really should do asking such question is to specify which period, type etc cannon are you thinking of.

While something like "average" trebuchet probably can be assumed for most Medieval period (although that's probably gross oversimplification), cannons were and are constantly evolving/changing weapons.

The matter of size affects both weapons too, of course.

[Dervag]

A slightly random question...

Cannon Vs Trebuchet in the following situations...

Siege weapon vs massed infantry.
Siege weapon vs castle wall.
Siege weapon vs other siege weapon.

I'm just curious, is a massive rock falling from the sky better than a direct shot cannonball? The 'ball has velocity, kinetic energy and blackpowder, but the big T has gravity, and a 100 lb projectile...Against massed infantry, the cannon wins.

Any cannon post about 1600 (1550) will be far more effective against infantry than a trebuchet. Unlike a trebuchet, a cannon fires parallel to the ground and can kill entire files of men who fight in close order. The trebuchet could theoretically improve its antipersonnel effect by loading up with many small rocks... at which point the cannon can equally well break out grapeshot or canister.

Before the 1500s, the earliest, most primitive cannons were nearly impossible to use in a field battle because they were so prone to blowing up and so difficult to set up. But trebuchets are equally impossible to use in a field battle. They were difficult to aim, and all the enemy really has to do is charge at you to get inside the minimum of the machine. Moreover, they were too large and clumsy to be moved around by a field army and had to be assembled on site before use. A trebuchet was useful only against targets that wouldn't dodge while you physically assembled a catapult only a few hundred yards away. Great for targeting a building, not so great for targeting a bunch of guys with swords.
________

Against a castle wall, the cannon wins, even if we use a very old and primitive cannon. Castle walls are mostly vertical, and are higher than they are tall; a cannonball that shatters stone and penetrates the outer cladding to punch into the rubble fill between the two walls will do a lot of damage. The wall's own height makes it likely to fall apart under its own weight once the basic structure is compromised.

Trebuchets will tend to strike the wall at a shallower angle (increasing the odds of a rebound), will see the wall as a smaller target, and will not be able to punch through the stone with each shot the way a metal cannonball could.
_______

Against another siege engine, the cannon wins, unless we choose a ludicrously unoptimal cannon. If we choose a giant hooped bombard that takes several hours to reload, the trebuchet can win by default because it can set up and start dropping rocks before I reload my gun. But if we choose a smaller cannon (such as existed even at the beginning of the age of gunpowder), the cannon will have the advantage of (relative) mobility and target size.

[Rasilak]

Hm, there's quite a lot of different types, as the development of cannons stretches over at least 4-5 centuries (if you don't count modern artillery). I'll discuss some examples (but correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not an artillery expert):

Siege weapon vs massed infantry.Except maybe for early bombards, this point clearly goes to cannons, thanks to canister shot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canister_shot), not to mention other mean stuff like Shrapnel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrapnel_shell), Carcass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcass_(projectile)) or quicklime-filled projectiles.

Siege weapon vs castle wall.
Gunpowder artillery quickly made castles obsolete. This was first countered by building forts with obscenely thick, solid walls, but eventually even this was not enough.

Siege weapon vs other siege weapon.Trebuchets are a lot more vulnerable to fire (since they're made of wood) and solid projectiles (since they're larger and more fragile). I'd say that it's pretty hard to render a cannon unusable, even with a direct hit. But this doesn't apply to its crew and the gunpowder. Basically, anti-infantry tactics should work best, since a cannon without crew is useless.
EDIT: Damn, ninja'd

[averagejoe]

Quick question about bows (as in, bow and arrows). How does one transport them if one has good reason to believe that they won't need it in any immediate fashion? Is it desirable to carry it unstrung? I often see people in fiction carrying bows by leaving them strung and then putting them around their torso like a bandoleer, but this seems silly to do over long distances as the movement of walking might damage the string. I'd imagine that there's some sort of specialized pouch or sling one could use, or even just stick it unstrung into one's quiver, but this is just speculation on my part.

I don't even know enough about this to know whether I need to be specific as to the type of bow, or how specific I need to be, but I'll say 1500's Europe as a starting point, though information about any bows in any time period would be interesting and useful.

[Spiryt]

Generally carrying around a wooden selfbow that's strung all time is damaging, and not for string but for the bow itself.

And one would generally carry such bow as a staff, in hand, there's hard to do it other way.

[Fhaolan]

Quick question about bows (as in, bow and arrows). How does one transport them if one has good reason to believe that they won't need it in any immediate fashion? Is it desirable to carry it unstrung? I often see people in fiction carrying bows by leaving them strung and then putting them around their torso like a bandoleer, but this seems silly to do over long distances as the movement of walking might damage the string. I'd imagine that there's some sort of specialized pouch or sling one could use, or even just stick it unstrung into one's quiver, but this is just speculation on my part.

I don't even know enough about this to know whether I need to be specific as to the type of bow, or how specific I need to be, but I'll say 1500's Europe as a starting point, though information about any bows in any time period would be interesting and useful.

Bows are carried unstrung until needed, as the constant tension on the bow will cause warpage, and weakening (if not stretching) of the bowstring.

Bags and boxes are a fairly standard way to protect an unused bow. There was at least one Robin Hood movie... can't remember which one now.. that the merry men hid their bows inside hollowed-out, relatively large diameter, staves. While this may sound silly, it's actually not unheard of for really seriously expensive bows that the owner wants to keep dry and protected.

Strings *must* be kept dry as much as possible, as a wet string will either stretch, or will simply work poorly depending on what exactly the string is made of.

The idea of carrying a bow on your back with the string across the chest was invented by Hollywood-types who were dealing with costume bows that had little to no draw. My heaviest longbow is an 80lb pull, and putting that thing on like that means I'm not breathing very well, and it would take me several minutes just to get the stupid thing off. :smallsmile: An actual military longbow could be 100-150lbs or even higher. I wouldn't even want to contemplate doing that with a short horsebow. Just the shape of it would hurt. :smallsmile: Also, somehow the pictures show the quiver being on the back as well when they did that, usually pointing over the other shoulder. Which means you had to take the quiver off, to get the bow off, or the bow was sprung by not only your body but the quiver, probably bending the quiver and breaking every arrow shaft... Yeah, whatever.

Horsebows and other shortbows can be carried in quivers in a separate pocket from the arrows. That's actually pretty common with Steppe bows like Mongols and whatnot, as well as ancient-world ones like Sumeria.

[kirbsys]

I have questions regarding Nuclear weaponry and radiation that stem from Fallout. *Warning, Fallout 3 spoilers (fairly minor)

1.) In game there is mention that the Overseer of Vault 87 believes that a direct nuclear blast caused the lethal levels of radiation outside of the vault doors. The game occurs at least a few hundred years after the bomb's fell, and unless I'm mistaken Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't fatally irradiated less than one hundred years later. So could modern ICMB Warheads cause that level of radiation?

2.) This one is a general question about radiation. In Fallout it is possible to instantly die of radiation poisoning, while I understand that radiation sickness can certainly lead to death, can it cause instant death the way depicted in game?

Thanks.

[ImmortalAer]

I have questions regarding Nuclear weaponry and radiation that stem from Fallout. *Warning, Fallout 3 spoilers (fairly minor)

1.) In game there is mention that the Overseer of Vault 87 believes that a direct nuclear blast caused the lethal levels of radiation outside of the vault doors. The game occurs at least a few hundred years after the bomb's fell, and unless I'm mistaken Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't fatally irradiated less than one hundred years later. So could modern ICMB Warheads cause that level of radiation?

Our modern ones would last a lot longer than the old A-Bomb, but not quite that long. Then again, we're talking about it on a scale that can't really be tested for exponential forces. (1 bomb does this, but what if we set off 50 at the same time?) Fallout also uses SUPER-Atomic bombs, though. No real explaination given about those, but (real) radiation can last a long, long time.

2.) This one is a general question about radiation. In Fallout it is possible to instantly die of radiation poisoning, while I understand that radiation sickness can certainly lead to death, can it cause instant death the way depicted in game?

If it's strong enough it could burn you like fire, otherwise your just looking at a lot of tumors/cancer.

Thanks.


My opinions, though thier not really conclusive.

[Rasilak]

1.) In game there is mention that the Overseer of Vault 87 believes that a direct nuclear blast caused the lethal levels of radiation outside of the vault doors. The game occurs at least a few hundred years after the bomb's fell, and unless I'm mistaken Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't fatally irradiated less than one hundred years later. So could modern ICMB Warheads cause that level of radiation?The radiation from modern nuclear weapons is usually only immediately dangerous for some days (which does not mean that its healthy to live at ground zero for the next years). However, this looks totally different if the bomb is specifically designed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salted_bomb) to create long-lasting pollution.


2.) This one is a general question about radiation. In Fallout it is possible to instantly die of radiation poisoning, while I understand that radiation sickness can certainly lead to death, can it cause instant death the way depicted in game?
Like said before, radiation can transmit large doses of energy, literally burning anyone nearby. But this would probably not occur from radioactive fallout from some decades ago. Radiation poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_poisoning) is the much more likely result.

[Swordguy]

There's a LOT of misconceptions about the long-term effects of nuclear weaponry. I'm no expert. However, my father worked for the USAF as a missileer for five years in Montana, so asking him proved to be close enough to consulting an expert.

The answer to whether nukes would irradiate an area for a long time is dependent on three factors. ALL of these factors must be present for the traditional "you can't live here for hundreds of years" fear to occur:

1) You need a LOT of bombs. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were in the 15-20 Kiloton (kt) range, and rendered the target areas essentially uninhabitable for about 5 years. Modern ICBM warheads are in the 50-250 kt range (some of the Soviet-bloc ones are significantly larger though). Because of the effects of wind and rain to move the fallout plume elsewhere than where the bomb impacted, you're actually not getting very much of the actual fallout in the blast area, and the fallout plume is dispersed over a pretty good-sized area, even with very little wind. Thus, while the entire area under the fallout plume is a bad place to be for a few weeks, there's actually not all that much "bad stuff" per square kilometer. For our fear to occur, you need to kick up a ludicrous amount of irradiated dust and debris - enough to saturate the area of the fallout plume and beyond, so it takes years just fr the irradiated dust to settle before it starts degrading, radioactively-speaking. That means you need a lot of high-yield bombs.

2) The specific make of the bomb is important. There are some atomic weapons specifically designed to carry extra fissile material. The theory is that when the bomb detonates, the extra material (always HIGHLY radioactive) is blown into dust and scattered over the blast area. If the material chosen is highly radioactive and with a moderately-long half-life, you can irradiate the area from this alone seriously enough to make it dangerous to live in for at least a few human lifetimes. Note that you don't actually have to have a nuke to do this - just good explosive device and fissile material (a "dirty" bomb). the nuke just adds insult to injury. To my (his) knowledge, no country is deliberately designing nuclear weapons with this sort of specification (Chinese and Russian nukes are a little dirtier than those of Western nations, but that's a function of their manufacturing base, not a deliberate choice to make dirty bombs).

3) Most importantly: are the nukes being dropped air-burst or ground-burst nukes? Modern nations all favor air-burst nukes because it preserves more of the weapons blast to impact ground targets, provides a more effective EMP effect to more easily disable air-defense systems from stopping follow-up strikes, and most importantly, reduces fallout by up to 95%. The goal of modern strategic nuclear warfare is to eliminate enemy population/manufacturing/government centers as quickly and efficiently as possible, and to not turn the target into a nuclear wasteland, so you can occupy it later. Air-burst weapons are designed with this in mind. Clearly, then, you'll need groundburst nukes for the big scary scenario to come true.

To make the Fallout 3 scenario come true, then, you'd need a large number of fairly dirty, high-yield, groundburst weapons hitting the DC metro area. Judging by the estimations I've seen, take the game's "playable area" and drop 25-50 100kt (ish) modern nukes into that area to produce an effect like that that lasts that long. That much power would wipe the city flat, of course - there wouldn't be ruins to display. Alternatively, you could drop 5-10 really dirty bombs in the area, loaded up with something mean like (iirc) cobalt, and a lot of it. But it's possible. It's also very much not likely. Why irradiate the area for hundreds of years when you can wipe out all resistance and go take it for yourself 5-10 years later?

[lsfreak]

I am no expert on nuclear weapons either, however the specific design of the bomb matters a lot.

Your standard nuke has a core of fizzle material, plutonium (or uranium), which is compressed and ignited by high explosives. Most countries boost it with minor fusion reactions within the core, but that's unimportant for the yield beyond providing addition neutrons to the the reaction up longer (more fizzle material... fizzles).

Now, many/most modern weapons are also two-stage weapons - that is, thermonuclear/hydrogen bombs. The explosion of the primary also supercompresses a secondary that's located outside the high-explosives assembly, providing the heat and pressure to ignite a fusion reaction. This increases the bomb's power and, a rather major point, the fusion reaction has zero long-term fallout. The only radiation is (at least relatively-speaking) short-term, localized alpha/beta/gamma radiation. Essentially, the fusion irradiates the particles in the ground for a while, rather than coating the whole area in fission byproducts that take months or years to become safe.

Now, here's where the design really matters. You can house the secondary in a casing of lead - or you can house it in a casing of depleted uranium. If you cover it in DU, the entire thing undergoes fission when the secondary blows, waaay more fizzle material than was in the original bomb. The Soviet Tsar Bomba, for example, was detonated "clean" - a lead lining. The fission primary was ~3-4 megatons and the fusion was the other ~46-47 megatons. If they'd detonated it dirty, there would have been about 50MT extra fission on top of it, with all the extra fallout.

Now, the dirty version is waaay for payload-efficient. For almost no additional weight, you doubled the yield. But, the fallout means that you won't be able to occupy the area for a long time either. Iirc, such dirty warheads were reserved for second-strike - submarines and the like that would target Soviet cities and missile sites after a nuclear attack on the US. Battlefield-range missiles and airdropped bombs were almost always the clean version. However, as Swordguy said, even those extremely-dirty bombs would be detonated hundreds of meters above a city, reducing local fallout by huge amounts (air detonations are much more efficient in terms of destructive capability, and as Swordguy said, ground detonations means you can't really occupy the area).

Also, as for radiation poisoning - the initial radiation from the burst itself (huge flash/heat/gamma rays) is the only part that will have that sudden an effect. There was one test I recall that the fallout was much heavier than expected, so much so that people who went outside could feel the radiation on their skin. Even that isn't deadly (at least, not for a few decades). There were several lab accidents where a fizzle core was dropped or had something dropped on it, giving the people huge doses of radiation and killing them within a week. "Neutron bombs" were designed to use small fusion explosions to deliver huge radiation dozes (like, tens of times a lethal dose) to people covered in tanks a kilometer away, and that wasn't expected to kill for days.

[alexi]

Quick question about bows (as in, bow and arrows). How does one transport them if one has good reason to believe that they won't need it in any immediate fashion? Is it desirable to carry it unstrung? I often see people in fiction carrying bows by leaving them strung and then putting them around their torso like a bandoleer, but this seems silly to do over long distances as the movement of walking might damage the string. I'd imagine that there's some sort of specialized pouch or sling one could use, or even just stick it unstrung into one's quiver, but this is just speculation on my part.

I don't even know enough about this to know whether I need to be specific as to the type of bow, or how specific I need to be, but I'll say 1500's Europe as a starting point, though information about any bows in any time period would be interesting and useful.

15th century england would see bows transported like so: http://tiny.cc/EIC2O
arrows would be transported like in one of these, cause ya don't want your fletching to get wet: http://tiny.cc/GSfdg

my understand has it that martial archers rarely used quivers, they just stuck their arrows in the ground ahead of them, or thru their belts

[Fhaolan]

my understand has it that martial archers rarely used quivers, they just stuck their arrows in the ground ahead of them, or thru their belts

Sticking it through their belts is a bit weird if you think about it. That will tend to warp the shafts of the arrows, even if the belts aren't tight. And if the heads are barbed, which many military arrows are, drawing one from your belt.... I dunno, that just doesn't sound right. Add in the number of arrows a military archer would need... they'd have trouble moving with all those arrowheads sticking into their legs when they walk. Of course, that number of arrows also makes belt or back quivers rather silly as well. We're talking bundles of a fifty to a hundred arrows per archer. Way, *way* beyond what a hunter archer deals with regularly.

Sticking them in the ground... I've seen hunting archers do that, and I've got no problem with it. However, my understanding of military archers is that like any other military unit they can't just stand in one place and hope everyone goes around them. They've got to be able to quick march to change location without wasting any time picking up all the arrows they've got stuck in the ground. And again, half an hundred arrows stuck in the ground? That's a lot of arrows to futz with.

What I have seen reference to in both European and Oriental military references is 'baskets' of arrows, set so that they just in front of, and between each pair of archers. The idea being that the pair of archers would be able to pick up the basket between them and quickmarch, or that there would be a dedicated gofer-type that would be running baskets of arrows to the archers from the supply line, and moving the baskets when the archer unit was being relocated.