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

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

That sounds about right for the arrows. I know that the Mongols had wagons of arrows that they brought with them, so if one horse-archer ran out of arrows, he could gallop back to the wagons and get another quiver.

[13_CBS]

A question for those who are familiar with Byzantine military history...

My impression of Byzantine Cataphracts is that, in terms of equipment and discipline, they were superior to their contemporary Western European knights--their body armors offered roughly the same amount of protection as the knights', their horses were barded, and they might have had a ranged attack in the form of bows.

Thus, in a straight headlong fight, were Byzantine Cataphracts better at being heavy shock cavalry than European knights? It seems like they would have been, yet I think I remember Byzantine sources apparently indicating that the crushing shock power of European knights was something to be wary of, even afraid of. Why such a comment from a nation that apparently has even better cavalry?

[tyckspoon]

Thus, in a straight headlong fight, were Byzantine Cataphracts better at being heavy shock cavalry than European knights? It seems like they would have been, yet I think I remember Byzantine sources apparently indicating that the crushing shock power of European knights was something to be wary of, even afraid of. Why such a comment from a nation that apparently has even better cavalry?

The simple reason would be that having a better version of something does not mean your opponent's version is suddenly bad. It just means yours is better; European knights were still a force that demanded respect on the battlefield. By analogy, imagine we are both holding guns. I have a single-shot rifle, probably an older model. You have a modern semi-auto weapon. Your weapon is clearly superior in a number of important ways... but I can still shoot you, and you would have to be insane not to respect that fact.

[The Rose Dragon]

Why are bullpup designs more compact than the standard designs in rifles?

The only thing I can come up with is because the bullet has to travel a certain length in the barrel to gain enough rotation from the rifling, but I'm not sure.

[13_CBS]

Why are bullpup designs more compact than the standard designs in rifles?

It's because the place where the cartridges enter the breech/chamber is placed further back, closer to the butt of the rifle. The barrel keeps its length, but the rifle becomes smaller (or the barrel becomes longer while the rifle keeps its length).

[Mike_G]

Why are bullpup designs more compact than the standard designs in rifles?

The only thing I can come up with is because the bullet has to travel a certain length in the barrel to gain enough rotation from the rifling, but I'm not sure.


Pretty much exactly this. The longer the barrel, the more accurate the rifle will be, but the more unweildy in close quarters. The bullpup design puts some of the barrel back behind the trigger, giving you that much more barrel without lengthening the rifle.

I've never used a bullpup rifle, so I don't know if there's any mechanical problems locating the bolt so far back. I'm not sure how that affects reliability.

[Storm Bringer]

Okay a few things for a few posters:

arrows: In one of Bernard Conwels books ( Harlequin, for referance), the Author mentions that the english archers (at the time of Crecy) carried their arrows in cloth bags which were stored on wagons for transport and dolled out pior to battle. while a work of fiction. Conwell puts in a fair amount of researchs

On bullpups:

Effectivly, all that a bullpup is is a rifle with the grip moved forward. take this L-85A1 rilfe (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SA-80_rifle_1996.jpg). when fired, the cocking handle reaches to the back of area covered by the dust cover (the green plastic cover just behind the bolt.

Form a users point of view, it's not that much harder to shoot, if any harder. what is, as far as i know, solid plastic on a m-16 (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg) is used for the recoil spring on the L-85. the firing posture is more or less the same (here (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L85A2.JPEG)a dutch marine is cross training with one). It's easy enough to fire, I can speak from personal experence here. Reliability wise, the L85 is a fussy B*tch, but this is a property of the rilfes specific desing, rather than a general trait of bullpups. I can't speak about the AUG or other bullpups.

if you have any specific questions on the rilfe, feel free to ask. I'm a serving member of the british army, so know quite a bit about the A2.

[Norsesmithy]

Wow, lots of interesting questions since I last logged on...

With regard to Fallout (the game), and Fallout (the hazard of nuclear war), mass media (the Fallout franchise included) has for many years overstated the threat of fallout after a bomb detonation.

It has been covered pretty well, by other posters, but I feel that I can add a few points:

The first is that metal objects exposed to neutron radiation often become radioactive as well. Especially anything with lead, zinc, or tin. This is a minor threat, the irradiated metals typically just produce alpha rads, and alpha is only really a threat if you eat an alpha source (or breath it, or get it in your eye, etc)

The second is that the radiation sources that cause destruction to flesh (the damage called radiation burns), all typically have half lives measured in hours or days, so they are only a threat for the first couple of weeks. The radiation sources that are persistent are typically the kind that are weak enough that they must be ingested to do lasting harm to a person.

The last is that the dangerous fallout from a groundburster is mostly heavy, and rarely travels very far.

As far as Bullpups are concerned, they are considered "handier" because they are typically 6-7 inches shorter than a standard rifle with the same barrel length.

Tradeoffs include mushier triggers, poor balance (the center of gravity of most bullpups is at or behind the trigger hand grip, you want the center of gravity to be between your hands for easiest pointing, fastest recovery, and most stable aiming), difficult mag changes (a trained soldier with a L85 or AUG is just going to be slower than a man of similar training using a M16), extra parts to break, and having the chamber right next to your face when something bad happens.

I think they are neat, but in a real fight I think I would rather have a traditional rifle.

Bullpups I have fired include the Bushmaster M17, a semiauto Steyr AUG clone, a FN FS2000, a mashup kit built ROMAK based bullpup, and Mini-14 based bullpup.

I think I liked the Fs2000 the best, but I would grab my AR first if they were laying next to each other on a table somewhere.

[13_CBS]

The simple reason would be that having a better version of something does not mean your opponent's version is suddenly bad. It just means yours is better; European knights were still a force that demanded respect on the battlefield.


Maybe, but the chroniclers seem to have been in awe of European knightly charges, when surely they've seen much of the same thing (if not better) in their own Cataphracts. Why are they so impressed?

This, of course, assumes that Cataphracts were superior to contemporary medieval knights, which is what I'm actually questioning: were they? If not, why, despite the apparent superiority in protective armor and capabilities?



By analogy, imagine we are both holding guns. I have a single-shot rifle, probably an older model. You have a modern semi-auto weapon. Your weapon is clearly superior in a number of important ways... but I can still shoot you, and you would have to be insane not to respect that fact.

Perhaps a true military warrior, one who's seen combat and braved live bullets ripping past his face, would be more cautious, but to a layman like me...I might be too busy laughing to hold my rifle. Seriously, a single shot muzzle-loading black powder low-velocity projectile gun against my semi-auto magazine using modern chemical-propelled high-velocity projectile gun? Sorry, but I'd probably be very comfortable sitting back and sniping you.

I don't mean to sound insulting--it's just that, if my weapon is so much better than yours, and everything else being equal, why would I be impressed by your weapon? Again, this is from a layman's point of view, from someone with zero combat experience.

[Fhaolan]

Again, this is from a layman's point of view, from someone with zero combat experience.

Exactly. :smallbiggrin:

To be less succint, your reaction is exactly why you'd be dead, and the opponent with the blackpower gun would win the fight. Just because you've got a better weapon than your opponent does not negate the fact that your opponent is weilding a deadly weapon.

This is why real martial artists, when mugged by a guy with a knife, will hand over their wallets rather than fight. Because they know that no matter how impressive their fighting skills are, that knife is still a deadly weapon and can kill them and it's not worth the risk.

Your impressive gun does not make you immune to the blackpower gun's bullet. It can still kill you. You can have a rocket powered grenade launcher with heat-seeking capablility, but a crossbow bolt between the eyes will still kill you.

Besides that; the difference between the Byzantine cataphract and the European knight. First off, the real heavy cataphracts with the heavy scale and barding lasted until about the 6th century. After that point they still used the name cataphract, but they were considerably lighter in armour, with hardened leather and maile replacing the heavy metal scales. This was considerably cheaper allowing them to field much larger numbers. This style of cataphract lasted until about 9th century, when the 'crushing charges' of the Europeans convinced them to go heavy again bringing back the heavy scale. At about the 15th century, European metalworking had surpassed the Byzantine equivalent, and the cataphract was now usually equiped in plate armour purchased from the Europeans (also known as white harnesses, for reasons I'm not entirely clear on).

[Mike_G]

Perhaps a true military warrior, one who's seen combat and braved live bullets ripping past his face, would be more cautious, but to a layman like me...I might be too busy laughing to hold my rifle. Seriously, a single shot muzzle-loading black powder low-velocity projectile gun against my semi-auto magazine using modern chemical-propelled high-velocity projectile gun? Sorry, but I'd probably be very comfortable sitting back and sniping you.

I don't mean to sound insulting--it's just that, if my weapon is so much better than yours, and everything else being equal, why would I be impressed by your weapon? Again, this is from a layman's point of view, from someone with zero combat experience.

I'm sure many's the British soldier with a Zulu spear in his chest felt differently as he dropped his state of the art breechloader.

It's nice to have better weapons and gear, no question. It improves your odds. It doesn't make you Superman. As witness the Battle of Mogadishu. Those Rangers and Special Forces guys are still dead, even though they were way better armed, trained and equipped than the teenage gangmembers they fought.

Many factors besides technology come into play. If I had a Brown Bess musket to your M-16, I'd try to hide and ambush you as you walked by, arrogant in your faith in your automatic weapon. Sure, if I bring my musket to a football field and face off with you, I'm screwed, but what if I'm hiding on the woods? Or around the next corner on a city street? Do you come looking for me, or do you surrender the initiative and stay out in the open where you have the advantage of range? If I'm smart, I can force you to choose between fighting on my terms or yielding important territory.

Don't be quick to write off a less well armed foe. Over the years, the poorly armed rabble have chalked up quite a few wins.

[Swordguy]

Fhaolan, Mike_G, you guys made me smile. I read the same thing, said the same things in my head, and read down to the bottom of the page to find you said them all perfectly. Yay. :smallbiggrin:

[alexi]

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.

my understanding was that they did not travel arround with the arrows stuck in their belts but only when firing in volleys. Arrows would have been transported in wagons bound into sheaves and dolled out as needed. Kinda as you have said. This is all from an english perspective however.

and some pictures depicting the 14th century english:
arrows stuck in belt
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Longbowmen.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Geoffrey_luttrell_psalter_1325_longbowmen.jpg
arrows in bags:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Battle-poitiers%281356%29.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Battle-poitiers%281356%29.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Battle_najera_froissart.jpg
war of the roses, with arrows just laying on the ground:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Battle_tewkesbury.JPG
and the royal company of archers, just because :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Royal_Company_of_Archers.jpg

[Dervag]

Perhaps a true military warrior, one who's seen combat and braved live bullets ripping past his face, would be more cautious, but to a layman like me...I might be too busy laughing to hold my rifle. Seriously, a single shot muzzle-loading black powder low-velocity projectile gun against my semi-auto magazine using modern chemical-propelled high-velocity projectile gun? Sorry, but I'd probably be very comfortable sitting back and sniping you.A single-shot rifle could mean anything, you know. For instance, it could mean one of the late 19th century breechloaders using compressed gunpowder and Spitzer rounds that could blow your head off at half a mile. You know, the ones that all those Victorian colonial expeditions used to massacre native armies ten times their size into the dirt over half the world? Those.

A marksman armed with something like that could be damn near as deadly as one armed with a modern bolt-action or semiautomatic rifle. His most notable weaknesses would be lack of close-range firepower and the puffs of gunpowder betraying his position when he fires. Both of which can be compensated for.
______

People more qualified than me have already responded to the bit about 'superior weapons', but I would very much like to throw my two cents in, because I want to underline a specific point:

I don't mean to sound insulting--it's just that, if my weapon is so much better than yours, and everything else being equal, why would I be impressed by your weapon? Again, this is from a layman's point of view, from someone with zero combat experience.Because everything else isn't equal. War isn't fair. People get very clever in war, especially when they're fighting at a disadvantage. They have every reason in the world to do so, because they know quite well that if they don't outthink you than you they are going to die.

Now, none of this cancels out the fact that you'll have an advantage. You can be clever too, and the more cleverly you use your advantages, the better off you'll be. But you still have to respect what your enemy is capable of. If you don't, there's a real danger that you'll spend the last seconds of your life staring at a man who laughs at you while he takes your "superior" weapon to go kill your friends with it.

[Fhaolan]

my understanding was that they did not travel arround with the arrows stuck in their belts but only when firing in volleys. Arrows would have been transported in wagons bound into sheaves and dolled out as needed. Kinda as you have said. This is all from an english perspective however.

and some pictures depicting the 14th century english:
arrows stuck in belt
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Longbowmen.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Geoffrey_luttrell_psalter_1325_longbowmen.jpg
arrows in bags:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Battle-poitiers%281356%29.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Battle-poitiers%281356%29.jpg
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Battle_najera_froissart.jpg
war of the roses, with arrows just laying on the ground:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/Battle_tewkesbury.JPG
and the royal company of archers, just because :)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Royal_Company_of_Archers.jpg

Huh, interesting. Well, I defer to primary sources then. :smallbiggrin:

It still seems weird to me, but then a lot of things don't make sense until you run into someone trained that way with the correct equipment.

Those illustrations look like 'training' montages, given that they're shooting targets, but one of the rules of combat is you train how you intend to do so there are no surprises when someone's trying to kill you. The reasons for doing that way must outweigh the problems. :smallsmile:

[Swordguy]

Huh, interesting. Well, I defer to primary sources then. :smallbiggrin:

It still seems weird to me, but then a lot of things don't make sense until you run into someone trained that way with the correct equipment.


I'd say the lesson of the primary sources is "we'll carry our arrows in any way possible and in no specific manner".

I know that if I was having baskets of arrows shutteled to my position, I'd stick a few in the ground as an immediate reserve and keep a few arrows in my belt to replentish that ground-stock if absolutely necessary. After all, what happens if the guy running baskets gets killed or runs away? As with most other things about ancient warfare, it's not like there was just "one true way" to do things. :smallwink:

[13_CBS]

As a non-sequitur, here is some decisive proof that advanced particle physics existed much earlier than previously thought. (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1566)

[Dervag]

I'm not sure that qualifies as "advanced." That's an eV-range collider right there, and there really isn't any point in using colliders at subrelativistic speeds.

He might as well have the knights charging at fixed targets; it's easier to set up your detectors that way.

[Rasilak]

That's an eV-range collider right there, and there really isn't any point in using colliders at subrelativistic speeds.Hm, actually a charging knight would probably have waaay more kinetic energy than CERN could ever hope to generate (1 TeV is about 160 nJ, which is not *that* impressive). However, the knight is nowhere near as concentrated as subatomic particles.

[MickJay]

Well, if you got the tip of the lance really, really sharp... :smallbiggrin:

[Storm Bringer]

true, but on the other hand, can a lance that is sharp enough to have a point that is sub-molecular count as 'primitive'?:smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin: I mean, most sci-fis brag about mono-molecular blades.

that's a point, slightly more on topic: how much does/did the sharpness of a lance affect it's penetrative power? would a sharp point make it better at pirecing steel breastplates, or would it not matter or even reduce penetration?

[Swordguy]

that's a point, slightly more on topic: how much does/did the sharpness of a lance affect it's penetrative power? would a sharp point make it better at pirecing steel breastplates, or would it not matter or even reduce penetration?

A sharp point definitely matters. Let me put it this way - how often do you hear about sport jousters or reenactors getting killed from lance strikes?

They're doing everything pretty much as you'd do it for real (depending of the jousting troupe), but I've never seen or heard of a jouster's breatsplate getting pierced by a bated tip.

[Dervag]

Looking at the question of lance penetration, think about it this way:

Imagine I hit a steel plate with a flat-tipped object about the size of a penny. To go through the plate, I need to drive that object hard enough to bore a penny-sized hole in a steel plate... an operation that normally requires machine tools.

Now imagine I use something that comes to a much sharper point. Driving the point into the steel takes less work, and once the point is in I can bend the steel on either side of the point out of the way, which is less work than simply trying to punch straight through it.

Of course, there are limits; even with a point of zero thickness, it takes more than zero energy to drive a pointed object through a steel plate. But having a sharp point is your friend.
________

(I should warn everyone here that accelerator physics is my job).


Hm, actually a charging knight would probably have waaay more kinetic energy than CERN could ever hope to generate (1 TeV is about 160 nJ, which is not *that* impressive). However, the knight is nowhere near as concentrated as subatomic particles.Point of information:
The LHC beams each carry about as much kinetic energy as a freight train. Each proton carries 160 nJ; there are on the order of a hundred trillion protons in the beam. You do the math.

What matters in a collider is not the total beam energy*, but the energy per particle, because it's the individual particles that do the colliding. You only get interesting side effects when the colliding particles have extreme energies.

Hence, the Ye Olde Jousting Collider has an energy in the eV range, maybe kicking up into the keV range if you count protons (which don't even interact when the beams collide, so you probably shouldn't count them).

*in this case, charging knights on horseback... I estimate on the order of 25000 J
________


Well, if you got the tip of the lance really, really sharp... :smallbiggrin:That increases the beam brightness, but it doesn't increase the beam energy. Making the beams sharper is a good idea, but it won't allow you to explore higher energy ranges- it just lets you explore lower energy ranges more thoroughly, because there's more collision happening.

[Subotei]

Hi,

Found this article online which some may find interesting about the decline of warfare:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.html

And associated with it this timeline of weapons development:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17423-timeline-weapons-technology.html

[Dervag]

Hi,

Found this article online which some may find interesting about the decline of warfare:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.htmlI question the reasoning described in the article; it seems to me that he could have been making much the same arguments in, say, 1890.

[Zain]

this may have been asked before, but what sort of crew spread could we find on a typical pirate vessel? how many people including a job distribution please

thanks in advance

[Norsesmithy]

Define typical?

In general, Pirates are volunteer crew on a stolen vessel. The type of jobs requiring filling are going to vary from vessel to vessel, and the type of skill sets are going to vary from crew to crew.

A couple of constants, though. You will need a watch at all times. This is generally going to include a man with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate by chart, a lookout, a helmsman, and the people needed to calculate speed using the knot rope, and a sounder. PLUS enough line handlers to allow them to adjust the sails, if we are talking about an age of sail vessel.

All crewmen will participate in preventative maintenance daily, or the ship will rot out from under their feet, in addition to their regular tasks.

Food will need to be distributed at least three times a day, so you will need a galley crew.

The you need a gunner, a loader, and a packer for each cannon.

A runner for every couple of cannon to keep the men in shot and powder.

Crewmen not line handling or operating cannon will probably be part of the boarding team. If you wish to capture prizes, you need to take the ship with as little damage as possible, this necessitates a fast, and overwhelmingly brutal boarding action.

[Kemper Boyd]

Pirate crews were also typically 2-4 times as large compared to merchant vessel crews.

[Dervag]

This is largely because they need not just enough men to run a ship (which is what the merchant ship has), but also enough men to charge over onto another ship, beat the people aboard it up, and take it.

In the simplest sense possible:

Imagine it takes 20 men to run a ship. If I am a pirate, I need not only 20 men on my ship, but also at least 20 men to board their ship, because if I send five or six guys over to board a ship with 20 people, I'm going to end up in trouble. And I'm going to have to leave some of those guys on that ship if I want to capture it for myself.

[13_CBS]

I heard this from somewhere, but I'm under the impression that many merchant ship captains simply surrender the goods to pirates thanks to insurance (I don't know exactly when this insurance policy was created, though, and which countries had it), unless the pirates were pathetically weak.

[Subotei]

I question the reasoning described in the article; it seems to me that he could have been making much the same arguments in, say, 1890.

Yeah - the growth of democracy argument could well apply to the 19th Century. Plus the elephant in the room is that we've not had a truely modern (ie nuclear) conflict post 1945 - having one would definitely skew his results the other way. I don't think he mentions the MAD scenario at all. Some interesting points and background info none the less.

[Dervag]

I heard this from somewhere, but I'm under the impression that many merchant ship captains simply surrender the goods to pirates thanks to insurance (I don't know exactly when this insurance policy was created, though, and which countries had it), unless the pirates were pathetically weak.I was talking more about the Age of Sail. But even today, the pirates need to put men on the freighter, and enough men to watch what's happening. If they don't, they're vulnerable to the possibility that the freighter crew will promise to do whatever they say and then ignore them as soon as they get off the ship. Or that if they leave only one or two guys to watch a crew of ten, the crew of ten may try something clever and overpower their guys.

[13_CBS]

I was talking more about the Age of Sail.

So was I, though I forgot to clarify. But I'm assuming that the rest of your post applied to Age of Sail pirates as well?

[Zain]

yes and the boat in question is a med sized gallion

[Diamondeye]

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.

This is partly correct: A ToT artillery fire mission is more effective than a "when ready" fire mission or an "at my command" fire mission because it ensures all the shells actually arrive at the target at the same time on the target. Each gun fires at a time precomputed to allow all the shells to arrive together. Guns in a modern artillery battery can be separated by several kiolmeters between platoons, and a battalion can have considerable separation between batteries when more than one is massed on a target, and the time of flight for each shell can be different. ToT compensates for this by having each gun fire at the right time for all the shells to fire together. However, it only affects the first volley in a fire mission, if there is more than one; subsequent volleys will be fired essentially "when ready" by each gun, and that will depend a lot on the individual crew.

However, ToT barrages, or artillery barrages of any kind, are not calculated for "morale effects"; morale is a pretty unquanitifiable thing and really, it isn't going to make a big difference to morale effects whether all the shells in a volley arrive together or a few seconds apart; it will be equally unpleasent either way. You are correct, though, about destructive effects becuase artillery targets tend to seek cover or move after the first volley. This is also why it's more effective to have, say, all 18 guns in a battalion fire one volley at a target than to use just the 6 guns of 1 battery to fire 3 volleys; the subsequent 2 will be generally less destructive than the first one.

ToT generally is used against pre-planned targets; they are very often used for things like Suppression of Enemy Air Defense (SEAD) or other suppression missions to coincide with some other form of attack. It's very difficult to coordinate a ToT mission against a target of opportunity since you would have to set the ToT far enough out to get all the guns ready but soon enough to not tie them up and de-synchronize the overall fire support plan, or lose the target.

For on-call missions that require direct control of firing by the observer (smoke screens in some cases, engagement of moving targets, a few others ) "at my command" is preferred; the battery tells the observer when the guns are loaded and laid, and the observer gives the command "fire" at the correct time based on the time of flight provided by the fire direction center. This gets all the shells there pretty close together in time, but doesn't tie the guns to the clock and allows the obsever to adapt to the actions of he target.


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.

This is all correct except the parts about the sides of the body. IBA does have side plates and carriers. The side plates cover from about the middle of the ribs on the side down to below the top of the hip bone. They do add considerably to weight, though; not all units use them. There are also kevlar "dunner shields" that cover the shoulders and upper arms. These don't have plates but they do protect the arms against shrapnel from IEDs. However, again, many units avoid them because they are arguably even more of an impediment than the side plates since they restrict the arms and provide less protection to boot.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Getting back to medieval tech for a moment, if one were to try to replace the D&D light/medium/heavy armor distinctions with a grouping by similarity (keeping it to 2-4 categories), what would be the most logical arrangement?

I was thinking "flexible" (robes, leather, etc.), "articulated" (chain, scale, etc.), and "solid" (breastplate, full plate, etc.), but I know nothing about armor and have no idea how closely the armors relate to one another in terms of how easily they're worn and how exactly they protect you. Is scale more similar to chain or to plate? Where would studded leather go? Is there any particular armor type that's in a class of its own? That sort of thing.

[Knaight]

You could just do "soft" and "hard". Soft would be flexible armor, including mail, hard would be non flexible armor. Breastplate, field plate, even banded (although putting that in a thread about real world armor is dubious, and nothing really matches per se.)

[Coidzor]

Well, offhand, chain, padded, and scale would be different levels of the armor as clothing bit, with the upperbody and limbs covered with armor-tubes basically, with no real points of articulation to help the natural range of motion.

Or possibly I'd include padded, leather, and brigandine(which is basically what studded leather is), with maybe the chain-shirt over an undershirt as covert or low-key armors...

Plate, depending upon its level of development can be a lone breastplate or a pretty-much fully articulated and interlocking series of fitted metal shells with a chainmail underweave and a padded gambeson for protection from chafing and to cushion blows.

I think a breastplate is just the actual breast(front) plate with a gambeson or brigandine for the back. Half-plate is basically the full torso-armor, possibly along with the codpiece(crotch), plackart(small of back/buttocks/top of back of thighs), and fauld(lower-front, sort of skirtish). Full-plate is the complete armored shell with greaves. So I think that'd be one progression, the Plate-family.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

even banded (although putting that in a thread about real world armor is dubious, and nothing really matches per se.)

There's no armor type matching banded mail? Interesting. Is there something at least vaguely similar it could be compared to (EDIT: or at least a name to give it to make it match something real)?


So it seems armors could pretty much be broken down into "clothing but better" and "solid plate." That should certainly simplify things. For the sake of argument, however, if you were trying to keep three proficiency levels purely for class differentiation, where would be the most realistic place to draw the line in the "clothing but better" category--chain and scale vs. everything else? Leather vs. everything else?

[Coidzor]

There's no armor type matching banded mail? Interesting. Is there something at least vaguely similar it could be compared to (EDIT: or at least a name to give it to make it match something real)?


So it seems armors could pretty much be broken down into "clothing but better" and "solid plate." That should certainly simplify things. For the sake of argument, however, if you were trying to keep three proficiency levels purely for class differentiation, where would be the most realistic place to draw the line in the "clothing but better" category--chain and scale vs. everything else? Leather vs. everything else?

Studded leather/Brigandine is probably the limit though maybe the chain shirt, depending upon how you feel like handling how it is worn.

For the middleweights, I'd say they can wear anything less than half-plate (or if you include lamellar armor, anything less than lamellar. Maybe splint-mail). From what I understand, Hide should probably be the equivalent of leather plate armor (with less parts/relative sophistication/complexity) a cuirass and other segmented hardened leather plates put together on a body.

Banded is pretty much splint-mail that's been misinterpreted and mixed with lamellar armor. Not sure if lamellar would count as half-plate or if it's covered outside of core in 3.X

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Studded leather/Brigandine is probably the limit though maybe the chain shirt, depending upon how you feel like handling how it is worn.

For the middleweights, I'd say they can wear anything less than half-plate (or if you include lamellar armor, anything less than lamellar. Maybe splint-mail). From what I understand, Hide should probably be the equivalent of leather plate armor (with less parts/relative sophistication/complexity) a cuirass and other segmented hardened leather plates put together on a body.

Banded is pretty much splint-mail that's been misinterpreted and mixed with lamellar armor. Not sure if lamellar would count as half-plate or if it's covered outside of core in 3.X

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the help.

[Spiryt]

brigandine(which is basically what studded leather is),


Not really. Studded leather is just leather with some studs/rivets stuck in it (according to PHB) which is pretty damn ridiculous.

Brigandine is armor with rivets that are holding small metal place together with leather. Inside of a brigandine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brigandine,_Italian,_c1470,_Royal_Armoury,_Le eds_(internal_view).JPG) from Wiki, to not search long.

And inside of armour from Visby reconstruction (http://www.hoashantverk.se/hantverk/hoas_rustningar/source/suit_of_armour_no_24_insid.html). This one is actually coat of plates from Visby, way before actual brigandine time (XV century), but brigandine basically is coat of plates with small plates.



Banded is pretty much splint-mail that's been misinterpreted and mixed with lamellar armor. Not sure if lamellar would count as half-plate or if it's covered outside of core in 3.X
The question is what is splint mail? Vertical pieces of metal like that were used in ~ XIV century but basically for parts of legs and arms, not whole body, AFAIK. Linky (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=2871).

And in formal matter, one should rather say "scale armour" not "scale mail" et cetera, beacuse "mail" is.... well mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour)).

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Not really. Studded leather is just leather with some studs/rivets stuck in it (according to PHB) which is pretty damn ridiculous.

Brigandine is armor with rivets that are holding small metal place together with leather. Inside of a brigandine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brigandine,_Italian,_c1470,_Royal_Armoury,_Le eds_(internal_view).JPG) from Wiki, to not search long.

So if you were going to replace studded leather with brigandine, would having lots of metal plates on the inside vs. lots of metal studs on the outside make a difference, or could you just change the fluff?

[Spiryt]

So if you were going to replace studded leather with brigandine, would having lots of metal plates on the inside vs. lots of metal studs on the outside make a difference, or could you just change the fluff?

It would make. Lot of metal studs is like taking black metal outfits and claiming that they're armor (not much sense probably).
Although some finds suggest that something like this could be used - last post. (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=1870&pid=249934&st=60&#entry249934) Armor is said to be from Ural, dated roughly at VIII - XII century. We don't know what's behind leather from this reconstruction, though, besides that there is maille, so it was probably effective in combination, not as standalone armour.

Brigandine is solid metal defense from overlapping pieces, possibly heavier than similar breastplate (as a lot of small overlaping pieces would weight more than a one solid sheet), although I have no idea how thick were usually brigandine plates.

Anyway, since brigandines, were obviously armors for torso, I would give them breastplate stats. Or make some different stats.

[Fhaolan]

It would make. Lot of metal studs is like taking black metal outfits and claiming that they're armor (not much sense probably).
Although some finds suggest that something like this could be used - last post. (http://www.freha.pl/index.php?showtopic=1870&pid=249934&st=60&#entry249934) Armor is said to be from Ural, dated roughly at VIII - XII century. We don't know what's behind leather from this reconstruction, though, besides that there is maille, so it was probably effective in combination, not as standalone armour.

I've never seen the 'D&D' version of studded leather anywhere, but I have seen what I consider an upgraded version. It's commonly known as 'Bezainted' armour. It's basically a cloth or leather jack covered in washers that are attached onto the backing using a rivet through the center of each washer. The cheap version of this has the washers sewn onto the backing, skipping the rivets (ring mail).

I've seen some pretty bizzare forms of armour though. Something called 'Horizontal Maille', where the rings aren't actually woven into a sheet, but are strung onto strips of leather and then sewn into a brigandine-like jack. There's wooden vertical slat armour of the Tlingit tribe from the Pacific Norwest USA. And cord armour from the some island somewhere... I can't remember where.

Saying something 'never happened' with armour can be a bit twitchy, as I've discovered that if you can think of it, someone somewhere has tried it. Maybe not successfully, but there you have it. :smallsmile:

[Eorran]

I remember reading on this thread (I think) that it wasn't unheard of for a duel with smallswords / rapiers / stabby swords to end in the death of both duelists, because the weapon could easily inflict fatal wounds that were not immediately incapacitating. This led to an interesting question:

How hard would it be for a fencing master to win a duel against an unskilled opponent who had no regard for his own life? (By "win", I mean he lives and the other guy dies.)

[Mike_G]

I remember reading on this thread (I think) that it wasn't unheard of for a duel with smallswords / rapiers / stabby swords to end in the death of both duelists, because the weapon could easily inflict fatal wounds that were not immediately incapacitating. This led to an interesting question:

How hard would it be for a fencing master to win a duel against an unskilled opponent who had no regard for his own life? (By "win", I mean he lives and the other guy dies.)


A master could probably control the opponent's weapon while making a killing blow. There are plenty of moves to do this. A competent fencer would know the counters, but an unskilled fencer may very well not. If you keep the forte (the base of your weapon, near the guard) against the foible (the part near the point) of his, simple leverage will allow you to control his weapon. If you angle your weapon so the guard directs his attack to the side while you point stays in line with his body, well, he dies and you don't.

Try this with any foil (or stick, etc). Put your blade on his, with the point of contact near your hand, but near his point, then angle your wrist so your guard is just off to your side but your point is angled toward his body. If either of you lunges with the blades thus, you will hit and he will not, and unless he does something to prevent it, you can easily control his weapon, and keep control.

If he's anywhere near as good as you, this is hard. If he's much worse, this is easy.

Now, if the guy with a deathwish is willing to wait for the master to attack, it's easy to ignore the attack and counterattack for a hit. Since the smallsword is both his offensive and defensive weapon, it's easiest to overcome the defense when the weapon is being used for offense, so, yeah, if you don't mind dying, you can generally get your blade in the other fellow.

Fencing (modern, sport fencing) awards points by priority referred to as Right of Way, and does not reward the counterattack that ignores his attack, and most real training wouldn't encourage it, since the art of defense was to help you survive duels, so you won't get points in competition, and in a duel you still wind up with a foot of steel in your chest, but yeah, you'd be dangerous.

Once.

[Dervag]

Though it's quite possible you saw that in a fair number of real duels- I can easily imagine some teenage aristocrat getting so worked up over a girl or something that he doesn't really care whether he lives or dies.

[Norsesmithy]

That is why I was never able to take foil fencing (and smallsword/rapier combat) seriously when it called itself the Art of Defense :smallconfused:

I thought that the point of defense was not killing a man in a futile gesture that cost you your life, but making the other guy stop attacking you (even if it doesn't kill him).

And when it comes to incapacitating a guy, a deep but survivable cut to a thick muscle is more likely to make a dude stop fighting than a pinprick to a vein that will kill him in six or seven minutes, but is only a minor inconvenience RIGHT NOW.

Am I wrong? Everything I have read, from period accounts, to modern EMT reports suggests that a more likely lethal stab is less likely to make a guy stop what he is doing than a big ugly slash that is hardly life threatening, BUT people made, carried, and used rapiers and smallswords by the barrelful back when swords were the most practical means of defense for a man who felt the need.

Was this a REAL example of Our Ancestors Were Stupid? or was there a clear desire for a swordsman to kill his opponent outright at risk of his own safety?

Was it just stupid fashion?

Why did swords like the smallsword rise to prominence compared to slashing blades of similar reach and weight?

[Spiryt]

Why did swords like the smallsword rise to prominence compared to slashing blades of similar reach and weight?

Slashing sword of similar weight to smallsword would be pretty pointless, I think. You need some blade presence and broadness of blade to make a cut.

[John Campbell]

There's no armor type matching banded mail? Interesting. Is there something at least vaguely similar it could be compared to (EDIT: or at least a name to give it to make it match something real)?

I generally interpret "banded mail" as meaning something like the Roman lorica segmentata.

[Dervag]

My impression is that quite a lot of those dueling swords had sharpened edges and could cut (or slice), at least to some extent.

[Mike_G]

That is why I was never able to take foil fencing (and smallsword/rapier combat) seriously when it called itself the Art of Defense :smallconfused:

I thought that the point of defense was not killing a man in a futile gesture that cost you your life, but making the other guy stop attacking you (even if it doesn't kill him).


You are looking a a sport or a pastime of fat re-enactors, not a martial art.

As far as the original Art of Defense, the point is to defend yourself. The smallsword or rapier is a good defensive weapon if you actually train to use it that way. Most modern practicioners of the "tag" style of SCA rapier fighting are doing it wrong

The traditional lessons, reinforced by the original Foil rules, teach you to defeat the attack, then riposte. In Olympic fencing, if I attack you and you just thrust into my attack and we both get hit, you receive no point because you did the wrong thing. If you parry my attack and then hit me, you get a point.

Now, when swords were sharp, parries were more empahtic, and you held it for longer. In modern sport fencing, any parry ends an attack, so often both fencers get hit, and the point is assigned by priority. This is a limitation of modern rules, not the original style or weapon.



And when it comes to incapacitating a guy, a deep but survivable cut to a thick muscle is more likely to make a dude stop fighting than a pinprick to a vein that will kill him in six or seven minutes, but is only a minor inconvenience RIGHT NOW.

Am I wrong? Everything I have read, from period accounts, to modern EMT reports suggests that a more likely lethal stab is less likely to make a guy stop what he is doing than a big ugly slash that is hardly life threatening, BUT people made, carried, and used rapiers and smallswords by the barrelful back when swords were the most practical means of defense for a man who felt the need.


You're not quite wrong. I'm a Paramedic, a nationally rated fencer, and did my time in the marines, so I can seak with some authority on this.

A thrust is more likely to hit organs and kill, but less likely to stop an opponent instantly. That's true.

What you're missing is that the rapier especially, and even the smallsword, wasn't just a needle to kill with.




Was this a REAL example of Our Ancestors Were Stupid? or was there a clear desire for a swordsman to kill his opponent outright at risk of his own safety?

Was it just stupid fashion?

Why did swords like the smallsword rise to prominence compared to slashing blades of similar reach and weight?

Well, most rapiers had some edge, and could cut. They were light and easy to wear with civilian dress. They were fast, as far as switching from parry to thrust without much change in arm or hand position, which means you could deflect his attack and get your point in him before he could adjust to the fact that he didn't hit. Rapiers had a good deal more reach than a cut and thrust sword of similar weight. There is no such animal as a slashing sword with similar weight and reach. It would need to be shorter or heavier, and either is a compromise.

And, with rapiers, at least, one was expected to use an offhand weapon, a buckler, or even the empty left hand, to help with defense.

The smallsword was pretty much a weapon of the duel, not to defend oneself in street brawls, so the style is more formal. This may not be a giood shoice against a gang of theives, but thatw as never its intent.

[Thane of Fife]

This is perhaps more of a training question than a weapon question, but this seems as good a place for it as any:

It's a fairly common trope in fiction that you have the one character (usually female) who is actually a competent fighter, but who isn't believed when she claims this, such that she has to kick somebody's butt before anyone will believe that she is in any way a capable fighter.

Now, knowing that it's possible to look at somebody's, say, golf stance and know that they're standing incorrectly, I assume that it's possible to similarly read a fighter.

So the question is, how soon before the actual butt-kicking should it be obvious that the person knows what they're doing?

Is that question clear?

[Storm Bringer]

okay, question for the yankee soldiers on the forum:

how much emphasis does the US training system place on parade ground drills? I'm told the british army is considered to have something of a fetish for good drills (to the point where 'good drills' is used to express approval).

Certainly, Phase 1 training involves a lot of time spent on the drill square, and a qualifed drill instructor is part of every training platoon team). one of the big test in the 14 week course is the drill test in week 7, in which anyone unable to pass muster on the drill square is weeded out and sent back to restart training with a new batch of recruits.

so, it is true? do the Yanks look at our hours on the drill square with bemusement, or do they, in fact, do the same, just with Texan sargents calling the orders instead of Scousers?

[Fhaolan]

This is perhaps more of a training question than a weapon question, but this seems as good a place for it as any:

It's a fairly common trope in fiction that you have the one character (usually female) who is actually a competent fighter, but who isn't believed when she claims this, such that she has to kick somebody's butt before anyone will believe that she is in any way a capable fighter.

Now, knowing that it's possible to look at somebody's, say, golf stance and know that they're standing incorrectly, I assume that it's possible to similarly read a fighter.

So the question is, how soon before the actual butt-kicking should it be obvious that the person knows what they're doing?

Is that question clear?

It depends a lot on the amount of training in the *viewers*, and their own compentency level. Mainy trained fighters will only recognize the tags associated with the specific style they've been trained in, and only on people physically similar to theselves (i.e. if they've never seen a woman fight in their style, they won't recognize it at first because of the structural differences between the gender's hip joints and general musculature.)

Street fighters tend to be a bit less discriminating, because they've been exposed to a broader range of styles, and are likely to have seen both genders fight. Anyone who ever tells you that gang girls are there just as eye candy have never actually been in a gang with girls. While eyecandy-types do exist, most gang girls are equally good in a fight and also tend to be more vicious and less likely to back off once blood is drawn.

People who are combat *trainers* on the other hand, have no real excuse. They need to be able to pick out potential as well as actualized training, and are much harder to fool. A trainer who picks out a recruit for a demo in front of the class and gets surprised during the fight that the person has previous training... that's a trainer who needs to go back to school themselves. As well, this is one of those areas where 'pretending to be a man to get into the army' can fall apart. If the gender-switched person gets any kind of individial-style combat training (which of course would be the more advanced stuff, and therefore not that hard to avoid really), and the combat trainer can't tell that the hips are working slightly diferently when they move, he's not competent enough to teach advanced skills.

[Kilremgor]

A set of questions to help defining a setting ;)

Currently I'm thinking about a homebrewn setting that was proposed by one of the players recently. It should contain enough material for several unique, interesting campaigns.

In short, real-world Earth was shaken by a Portal Storm-like event that affected entire multiverse, which is, portals to other, fantasy or technology-based worlds appearing everywhere, monsters rampaging through cities and general chaos. Well that idea is quite popular so it is easy to imagine. It happens that Earth is one of the most advanced worlds with regards to most of military tech, at least among worlds it connects to, so it helps.

But the setting itself happens some time after that event has stopped. World is mostly back to normal, yet still recovering from the damage and chaos. A large Earth-based mercenary company (think Blackwater/Xe, but minus the controversy and larger scale / truly multinational), is offering their services to other worlds in exchange of new technologies and magic items (potions to prolong life, healing potions, magic wands, mighty divine artifacts, etc. - that's the idea).

In this setting, humans from Earth can use magic in magic-oriented worlds, but not really well compared to natives, so bar the artifact usage (like 'mighty hammer of Thor we got from our mission in another world last year should obliterate that huge wall in one blow') most of the work is accomplished by Earth-manufactured military hardware; most magic items the company buys are protective ones to shield personnel and vehicles from hostile magic.

So the question is, what hardware such a company is likely to acquire?
It could be from any nation/source, should be reliable and effective, and price does matter. Though such a company is very rich by selling off tech and items unique to Earth, and can buy the hardware that would be hardly possible for current real-world ones, it still has non-infinite budget and has to buy cheaper weapons/vehicles if they are ok. In the setting, stable portals allow one-way travel to other world; to get back (i.e. make them teleport from the said world back to Earth), they should be reconfigured (which takes few hours). A lot of hardware can pass through one, but there is still capacity/size limitations, so ships wouldn't go in. Helicopters and jets are fine. Portals can only be opened to a single point in the target world, so once there, travel should be done by normal means. Given that campaigns are mercenary-based, and company collects a lot of info about other worlds, it is right to expect that target world's terrain and enemies are known beforehand.

So, such a company needs an expeditionary force, cost-effective, that can take on a lot of threats.

Of course, there will be a lot of assorted weapons and systems used, and players would be able to take their favourite weapons with them (even if those happen to be the only weapon/vehicle of that type brought into another world), but there should be anyway some 'standard' things that such a company would acquire.

So, what does everyone thinks is better to buy as
1) Personal firearms (obviously necessary). Don't really know what is better in such a broad case. From one PoV, being in another world with limited supply calls for maxed reliability, which would make it something from AK-series, but given unnaturally resilient fantasy threats (a dragon or whatever) something more armor-piercing might be of use.
2) Personal armor-penetrating / powerful explosive weapons (to take on large fantasy threats, such as ogres, dragons, and such). Thinking about newer RPGs, those are cheap, reliable and pack quite a punch.
3) Transport vehicles (obvious). Stryker? Bradley? Puma? BTR?
4) Transport helicopters (for mobile deployment). Mi-8 Hips (seeing how immensely popular they are and quite effective for their low price)?
5) Attack helicopters (for air support. And in the worlds where air threats are not common, those should be insanely effective). Apache?
6) Heavy armor (tanks). M1A1, Leo or T-90? Or something else?
7) Supply trucks/vehicles. No idea there :)
8) Reconassinance vehicles/UAVs. ?
9) Jets are perhaps a no-go in most cases as there would be an obvious problem of preparing a runway; and for transport role they are very limited this way, while attack helicopters should do better on the threats one can encounter for far cheaper price. But for long campaigns where a large base can be set, maybe.
...and maybe some other things that I've not thought of yet.

Such a list, even if just a general one, is obviously necessary to add more tactical depth and make situations more believable and interesting... as well as preventing things like 'well let's just call air support to kill those trolls. We should have a carrier somewhere with F-35s!' By specifying the general inventory and vehicles, fighting huge armies and assaulting cities should be more challenging :)

[Swordguy]

okay, question for the yankee soldiers on the forum:

how much emphasis does the US training system place on parade ground drills? I'm told the british army is considered to have something of a fetish for good drills (to the point where 'good drills' is used to express approval).

Certainly, Phase 1 training involves a lot of time spent on the drill square, and a qualifed drill instructor is part of every training platoon team). one of the big test in the 14 week course is the drill test in week 7, in which anyone unable to pass muster on the drill square is weeded out and sent back to restart training with a new batch of recruits.

so, it is true? do the Yanks look at our hours on the drill square with bemusement, or do they, in fact, do the same, just with Texan sargents calling the orders instead of Scousers?

During peacetime, the US Army has a heavy emphasis on close-order drill as a means to teach discipline and being part of a group - to build upon a stereotype, the "me first" individualistic emphasis inherent in American culture makes it very difficult to suborn oneself into the "group first" mentality of the military. Close-order drill is one of many ways to break recruits of their individualism and put them into a more group-oriented mindset. Further, moving in an organized formation is one of your basic soldiering skills in any case, so practice is necessary.

However, during wartime, the emphasis on close-order drill is much reduced. Your Drill practice is lessened to where, after the first week of Basic Combat Training, your only actual "practice" is when you're actually moving in a group from location to location. The time normally spent in Drill practice is instead spent at the firing range or other, directly combat-oriented practice areas.

When I was in BCT in 2005, the time we would have spent in Drill practice became an extra two days at the range, an extra two days at the Ft. Jackson MOUT facility (Urban Combat training), and the rest was spent in practice shooting from moving vehicles (protecting a convoy). You can see the relevance of this extra practice to the military situation at that time.

Not sure if that answers your question. Does it help?

[Storm Bringer]

somewhat. since I just came out of british phase one, and can tell you that even with the need for troops in afgan, we still spend a major part of training on close order drill.

[Dervag]

Warning: I am not a fully qualified thinker on these topics:

So, what does everyone thinks is better to buy as
1) Personal firearms (obviously necessary). Don't really know what is better in such a broad case. From one PoV, being in another world with limited supply calls for maxed reliability, which would make it something from AK-series, but given unnaturally resilient fantasy threats (a dragon or whatever) something more armor-piercing might be of use.

The AK-series has the advantage of being cheap and reliable, but the disadvantage of being (relatively) inaccurate. What kind of basic personal firearm the company uses is going to depend heavily on its background and modus operandi. If they hire large numbers of mercenaries from the Third World, they'll probably use AK-types. If they're a smaller, elite company based in the West, they're likely to use the NATO-standard types, chambered in 5.56x45mm.

If they're worried about stopping power because they spend a lot of time fighting ogres and demons and dragons, they may step back a generation in personal weapons and go to something like the 1950s-vintage battle rifles chambered in 7.62x51mm (functionally equivalent to .30-06): stuff like the M-14 or the German G3. These rifles are best used for semi-automatic fire. Generally, they can't be fired accurately on full auto (or in bursts) without a bipod or something for support.
_______


2) Personal armor-penetrating / powerful explosive weapons (to take on large fantasy threats, such as ogres, dragons, and such). Thinking about newer RPGs, those are cheap, reliable and pack quite a punch.RPG-like weapons will be a favorite. Recoiless rifles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle) are also a possibility, though those are technically crew-served weapons. Specialized guided missile launchers like the Javelin have a few drawbacks- the missiles are very expensive on a per-unit basis, costing a significant fraction of their weight in gold. Moreover, they're often programmed to seek out specific kinds of threats, like tanks, that won't be there on the battlefield.

For antiair roles, something like the Stinger should work well enough; they have a range of about five kilometers and a quite nasty punch.
_______


6) Heavy armor (tanks). M1A1, Leo or T-90? Or something else?Soviet-vintage T-72s might be a good choice- there are a lot of them kicking around in the arsenals of nations that would probably be willing to part with them for a nominal fee. They're not as deadly as the more modern designs, but they don't have to be; any tank is going to kick butt and take names when fighting knights in shining armor. Most of the improvements in tank design seen over the past fifty years have involved making tanks more survivable against antitank weapons and making them better at killing other tanks.
_______


9) Jets are perhaps a no-go in most cases as there would be an obvious problem of preparing a runway; and for transport role they are very limited this way, while attack helicopters should do better on the threats one can encounter for far cheaper price. But for long campaigns where a large base can be set, maybe.A private company is going to have trouble getting its hands on fighter jets. If it does, they'll be well behind the technology curve. For a good idea of what might be available, look up old jet designs, figure out when the last nations stopped using them, and compare to when your mercenary company was shopping for jets. You might very well see Vietnam-vintage aircraft.

No way is anyone going to sell these guys stealth aircraft or large warships.

[Kemper Boyd]

Soviet-vintage T-72s might be a good choice- there are a lot of them kicking around in the arsenals of nations that would probably be willing to part with them for a nominal fee. They're not as deadly as the more modern designs, but they don't have to be; any tank is going to kick butt and take names when fighting knights in shining armor. Most of the improvements in tank design seen over the past fifty years have involved making tanks more survivable against antitank weapons and making them better at killing other tanks.

Soviet tanks are actually a pretty bad idea, since they're (surprisingly enough) hard to maintain or repair. They're mostly designed to be relatively inexpensive, which makes for example switching out a broken engine hard to do even in a well-equipped workshop.

German Leopard tanks (both 1 & 2) are relatively cheap used and are much more user-friendly.

[Swordguy]

somewhat. since I just came out of british phase one, and can tell you that even with the need for troops in afgan, we still spend a major part of training on close order drill.

I'm pretty sure that the thinking on our end of the pond is that there's always time to train people in marching around once the shooting's done, and it's worthwhile to take the time you WOULD have spend on the marching around and use it for extra training that will enable people to come back to get their remedial marching around training in the first place.

Of course, you chaps are a lot more spit 'n polish than we are - that's for damn sure. I've never seen a Brit unit move sloppily. :smallwink:

[Dervag]

Soviet tanks are actually a pretty bad idea, since they're (surprisingly enough) hard to maintain or repair. They're mostly designed to be relatively inexpensive, which makes for example switching out a broken engine hard to do even in a well-equipped workshop.True. They do have maintenance problems. A lot depends on the role you envision them for. If tanks are effectively used as siege engines to deal with especially troublesome enemies in a set-piece battle, Soviet tanks will work well enough; that's what they're for. For decades, the USSR kept designing new tanks as a cheap solution to the problem of crushing NATO forces in the Fulda Gap, one heavy weapons emplacement at a time.

If you're trying to use tanks as part of the full panoply of modern mobile warfare (assuming you need to do so, and that Bradleys or BMPs or suchlike aren't good enough), then you're right; better to go for NATO designs.

[Rasilak]

1) Personal firearms (obviously necessary). Don't really know what is better in such a broad case. From one PoV, being in another world with limited supply calls for maxed reliability, which would make it something from AK-series, but given unnaturally resilient fantasy threats (a dragon or whatever) something more armor-piercing might be of use.
Depends on how tight your budget is. I'd go with some reasonably cheap and technologically simple assault rifles, with some kind of Kalashnikov being the obvious choice (AK47, AKM, AK74). If your Budget is slightly larger and you expect to meet big monsters, going for some old weapons in 7.62 NATO might be better (like Dervag said, something like M14, FN-FAL, G3,...). Both should be availible as military surplus in large quantities. Especially if you have large caliber rifles that can only be expected to be used in semi-auto to any effect, you'll profit by use of 2-3 light machine guns per squad(RPK, PKM, M60, Minimi, HK21 - it doesn't really matter). If some parts are interchangeable with your assault rifles, that's a bonus (like RPK and AK47).

2) Personal armor-penetrating / powerful explosive weapons (to take on large fantasy threats, such as ogres, dragons, and such). Thinking about newer RPGs, those are cheap, reliable and pack quite a punch.I'd really go for old, unguided RPG-7s. They're cheap, and any modern guiding systems are useless against fantasy enemies. And even those old RPGs pack more than enough punch. Grenade launchers are also a good bet, especially against tight formations. And anti-materiel rifles ore heavy machine guns could also perform very well against dragons and such.

3) Transport vehicles (obvious). Stryker? Bradley? Puma? BTR?
Any APC would be fine, I think. Take whatever is cheap, reliable and works with a large variety of fuel.

4) Transport helicopters (for mobile deployment). Mi-8 Hips (seeing how immensely popular they are and quite effective for their low price)?Might be good for some niche applications, but they are big, can't transport very much, and eat a lot of fuel. I'd prefer Ospreys since they have a waay longer range (I don't know of any cheap Russian equivalent).

5) Attack helicopters (for air support. And in the worlds where air threats are not common, those should be insanely effective). Apache?
You should focus on long range, ease of maintenance and lots of carrying capacity/ammo. But I'm not enough of a helicopter buff to know any details. (If you expect small threats in air, I'd reccomend the Mi24. It's fast, pretty well armored, and used to kick much Taliban behind before the US sent them Stingers.)

6) Heavy armor (tanks). M1A1, Leo or T-90? Or something else?Out of a gut feeling, I'd have supported Dervag's suggestion of the T-72, mainly because you can get them for scrap-metal prices, and it doesn't really matter how thick your armor and how large your gun is, when you're going against guys with pointed sticks. If you have money for better tank, you could go with M1A1 (gas turbine eats just about any fuel and is very quiet) or Leo 2 (since it eats ony about half as much, and can still run on a large variety of fuels)

7) Supply trucks/vehicles. No idea there :)Doesn't matter, as long as it's cheap, easy to maintain, and can drive on difficult terrain.

9) Jets are perhaps a no-go in most cases as there would be an obvious problem of preparing a runway; and for transport role they are very limited this way, while attack helicopters should do better on the threats one can encounter for far cheaper price. But for long campaigns where a large base can be set, maybe.Don't do it, its a trap. You only need to jets to fight enemy Jets/Bombers, and you probably won't run into any. Dragons and such usually fly too low and slow for a jet anyways, you'll be better off with ground-based FLAK (or even just any HMG) against those.

Also, you forgot artillery. Portable mortars as well as heavier mobile artillery should make short work of any forts/castles you encounter.
Also, horses may be obsolete against modern enemies, but they can be very effective against anything low-tech - they don't need fuel and can travel on difficult terrain or through forests. If you want to see how well they can do against low-tech enemies and civilians, take a look at Darfur.

[Dervag]

On the other hand, cavalry horses can probably be obtained locally, though it may be better to buy them on Earth because you want them to not freak out when people start shooting guns near them.

[Philistine]

Logistics will be problematic, especially on offense. How far ahead of the other connecting worlds is Earth's technology in this scenario? Also, how powerful is magic on the magically-oriented worlds?

Jets are indeed a Bad Idea, unless you absolutely need them to deal with some other world's air force - they just require too much of a logistical tail. Older jets, the sort that might be available on the surplus market, are even worse (partly because more modern military aircraft are specifically designed to reduce maintenance requirements, and partly because after several years - or decades - of military service, the older aircraft are just plain worn out). You probably wouldn't be able to support many helicopters, either - I'd suggest focusing on transport types, arming them with MGs in the doors when/if needed. It's too bad the old Skyraiders are long gone. Hmm... what about UCAVs for the air support role?

[my_evil_twin]

Archery question(s):
What are the effects of inclement weather on archery? I know that wind can throw projectiles off target, but how bad would it have to get before arrows stopped being an option.
What about rain? Any considerable effect there?
Specifically, I'm wondering if a severe storm would nullify massed archers in a battle.

Thanks.

[alexi]

water can be very very bad for bow strings, add on top of that any bow that has a rawhide backing, or is glued together (composite bows) can fail under wet conditions.

[Eorran]

How do UAV's compare with other modern military aircraft in terms of logistical supprt requirements? I'm under the impression that aircraft like Predator and Reaper are relatively fuel-efficient and lightweight (compared to combat aircraft, not sure about surveillance types). Can they operate off rough-surface airstrips? Also, do they require satelite communications, or are there other options for control / feedback?

If you needed jets for this worlds-crossing force, look at Saab. Sweden's air-defense strategy was made to deal with an enemy with air superiority, thus, Saab jets are designed to deal with short, rough airstrips (or highways) and, according to Wikipedia, the newest jet (JAS-39 Gripen) "can be refueled and rearmed in ten minutes by a five man mobile ground crew operating out of a truck, and then resume flying sorties." Dunno about repairs or mechanical servicing, though the same article says the Gripen is useful in expeditionary forces.

[Storm Bringer]

rain can/will affect a bow, but it's normal to carry a bow unstrung, with the strings in a waterproof pouch, and the classic english longbow was made from a single piece of very carfuly chosen wood that created a
natural 'compound' effect.

Crossbows, however, can't be unstrung, so tend to suffer much worse than longbows. At Crecy, the geonese crossbowmen hired by the french were slaughtered by the english longbowmen, due to a storm that knackered their crossbows while leaving the english longbows relativly unaffected. Also, they left their pavises (a real world name for DnD calls tower shields) somewhere in the army baggage, meaning they were much more vunerable than normal, as they had no cover to hide behind.

wind..... I have no idea. anything I said would be total Bull, so i'll say nothing and let somone who is a real-life archer tell you.

[AslanCross]

I've been following the thread about light vs heavy armor, and I just can't help but notice that we have a good helping of Playgrounders who have experience with and knowledge of period arms and armor.

Now while we do have access to literature on the subject in this country, it tends to be expensive and rather hard to find. Specialty bookstores probably carry them, though their price range is typically way beyond what my lowly government school salary can afford.

My question is, are there any online copies of texts on the subject?

[Swordguy]

I've been following the thread about light vs heavy armor, and I just can't help but notice that we have a good helping of Playgrounders who have experience with and knowledge of period arms and armor.

Now while we do have access to literature on the subject in this country, it tends to be expensive and rather hard to find. Specialty bookstores probably carry them, though their price range is typically way beyond what my lowly government school salary can afford.

My question is, are there any online copies of texts on the subject?

Heading out to see transformers 2, so this'll be quick.

Start here: http://www.myarmoury.com/home.php,
here: http://www.thearma.org/essays.htm,
and here:http://www.livinghistorylibrary.org/forumguidelines.php

Let us know when you're done with that. :smallbiggrin:

[Matthew]

Heading out to see Transformers 2, so this'll be quick.

Yikes! That's two and a half hours of your life you'll never get back (still, better out and about than on the internet...)

[Mando Knight]

Yikes! That's two and a half hours of your life you'll never get back (still, better out and about than on the internet...)

Of course, it's spent on the best two-and-a-half-hour long GM and Hasbro commercial (http://tfwiki.net/wiki/To_sell_toys) ever. :smalltongue:

[Diamondeye]

I'm pretty sure that the thinking on our end of the pond is that there's always time to train people in marching around once the shooting's done, and it's worthwhile to take the time you WOULD have spend on the marching around and use it for extra training that will enable people to come back to get their remedial marching around training in the first place.

Of course, you chaps are a lot more spit 'n polish than we are - that's for damn sure. I've never seen a Brit unit move sloppily. :smallwink:

As a general rule, outside of ceremonial units like the 3rd United States Infantry Regiment and training environments such as military academies, Basic Combat Training, Advanced Individual Training, Drill Sergeant School, and preparations for ceremonies such as changes of command, U.S. Army units do not spend a great deal of time on drill. Drill is most commonly used to move personnel from one place to another in an orderly fashion. Even in peacetime, combat and support units (as opposed to training units) spend little time on drill until a ceremony is near. For example, I was in a 155mm self-propelled howitzer battalion when I was in the regular army. We never onced practiced drill except for just prior to changes of command. The time was far better spent on other tasks, especially maintenance.

[Diamondeye]

How do UAV's compare with other modern military aircraft in terms of logistical supprt requirements? I'm under the impression that aircraft like Predator and Reaper are relatively fuel-efficient and lightweight (compared to combat aircraft, not sure about surveillance types). Can they operate off rough-surface airstrips? Also, do they require satelite communications, or are there other options for control / feedback?

UAVs, being smaller, obviously require smaller runways and less fuel than manned aircaft, but pay the price in ordnance loads. As for the means by which the ground station controls them I would be surprised if the details are publicly available. They also are not terribly fast, nor expected to perform in air to air combat.

[Swordguy]

Yikes! That's two and a half hours of your life you'll never get back (still, better out and about than on the internet...)

Oh GOD - you were right. It was...was...

I rate it just under Gigli and Pearl Harbor in the spectrum of "good movies". I couldn't tell what the people were saying well over half the time, I couldn't tell which Transformer was which except for Optimus, Bumblebee, and Devastator (which really killed the awesome scene where Prime is fighting 3 on 1), and they walked out of a Smithsonian Hangar in DC into an aircraft graveyard in New Mexico!

Why do they keep letting Michael Bay make MOVIES?! *sob*

*pant, pant*

That does it, I'm getting a Guinness or five and going to bed. Hopeful, I'll wake up and think the whole movie was an alcohol-induced hallucination.

[AslanCross]

Oh GOD - you were right. It was...was...

I rate it just under Gigli and Pearl Harbor in the spectrum of "good movies". I couldn't tell what the people were saying well over half the time, I couldn't tell which Transformer was which except for Optimus, Bumblebee, and Devastator (which really killed the awesome scene where Prime is fighting 3 on 1), and they walked out of a Smithsonian Hangar in DC into an aircraft graveyard in New Mexico!

Why do they keep letting Michael Bay make MOVIES?! *sob*

*pant, pant*

That does it, I'm getting a Guinness or five and going to bed. Hopeful, I'll wake up and think the whole movie was an alcohol-induced hallucination.

Thanks for the links, Swordguy. I've read some of ARMA before, but the other links are new to me. I do hope the damage you took from watching the movie wears off tomorrow. D:

[Milskidasith]

My question is pretty simple. Did knights really use swords to fight against people in plate armor? I mean, it seems pretty illogical to swordfight against somebody in plate armor when swords aren't very good at piercing it.

[Fhaolan]

My question is pretty simple. Did knights really use swords to fight against people in plate armor? I mean, it seems pretty illogical to swordfight against somebody in plate armor when swords aren't very good at piercing it.

You've got several things going on here. Usually if the person *knew* he was going to be fighting a full-plate opponent, if they had the choice of weapons available, and if they were trying to kill rather than capture and ransom, they would use a more appropriate weapon. Like a poleaxe or mace or something.

The problem are those three caviats. One, in a battle situation a knight with a sword is probably looking for peasants and militia to beat up on, not opposing knights. If he runs into a knight, that's why he's got a mace on his belt. Two, in duels or contests, full-plate fighters would likely be limited to certain weapons by the rules. Three, a full-plate person is probably worth a lot ransom-wise, because that armour is worth a lot in and of itself, so you don't really want to kill him, or even damage his armour much, just defeat him.

Also, during the full-plate time period, ground-pounding knights tended to use the bigger two-handed swords which were slightly more effective against full-plate than one-handed swords. At least effective enough to be a standard weapon in one-on-one duels and for faster defeats for ransom.

[Deadmeat.GW]

And it also depends on the type of sword used, there were some very special 'swords' which were designed to be used almost as a spike with a very stiff spine and a radically different cross section.

You would use the sword with one hand down on the blade to be able to direct strikes far more accurately so that you could strike at weak points since plate did have weak points but those were often quite difficult to get from above.

Flanged maces (knock the other guy down and you can use them to trap weapons or even shields and parts of your opponents armour so you can redirect his movements by adding drag to him) were quite light and excellent secondary weapons.
In my case however I did not have my own sword in the reenactments since you had to pay for your own kit and I went straight for a flanged mace out of steel with a leather strapping on the grip.
The result was that I quickly build an extensive repertoire of trapping and wrestling moves with it.

With warswords (big cross guards and called two handers or hand and a half swords in many cases) you can do the same thing with the cross guards and the pommel so you can use swords but they are simply the best generic weapons. Able to deal with almost anything thrown at you.

A guy with a flanged mace would have some trouble handling a person with good reach and a polearm type weapon due to it being quite short or a fast sword wielder who knows how to keep you at arms length.
Polaxes and the like can be trapped too close to your body to be useable, forcing you to resort to wrestling moves or even openhanded punches to try and make space against a fast moving opponent which quickly closes the distance (incidently exactly what I had to do if I wanted a chance to beat people with those kind of weapons as they would batter me senseless if I could not close the distance).

All of these weapons had their pluses and minuses and they were not bad at handling lighter armours in most cases but against unarmoured (padded at best) people you could run into trouble as most of those weapons either are more tiresome to wield in an extended fight then a sword or not very effective at guarding yourself with when facing multiple opponents.

[Adlan]

Archery question(s):
What are the effects of inclement weather on archery? I know that wind can throw projectiles off target, but how bad would it have to get before arrows stopped being an option.
What about rain? Any considerable effect there?
Specifically, I'm wondering if a severe storm would nullify massed archers in a battle.


How Bad a Storm? And What direction is the wind blowing? A Crosswind can be compensated for, though I doubt it the confusion of battle most archers would notice their arrows were falling 20-30 yards left or right of their target.
An On comming wind will shorten your effective range, and a following wind can send your arrows a much greater distance than otherwise. Gusty wind would mean all of this would be unpredicatable.
Rain effects some bows more than others, as has been mentioned. However, it also effects fletching (unless from unwashed water bird), and heavy rain can actually hit arrows in flight, and effect distance and accuracy of a shot.


Onto the subject of British Army Drill, I'm only an Ocdt, and I seem to have done more drill than some Americans. Drill is good for you :smallwink:

Good luck with phase 2.

[Dhavaer]

How effective would shooting someone's gun with your own be, assuming you were sufficiently skilled to reliably do so?

[Kemper Boyd]

How effective would shooting someone's gun with your own be, assuming you were sufficiently skilled to reliably do so?

Depends on how you hit, really. The results from range from "destroyed" to "probably unreliable now". And of course what gun you are using against what gun means a lot too.

[Eorran]

How effective would shooting someone's gun with your own be, assuming you were sufficiently skilled to reliably do so?

The only way I can imagine hitting someone else's gun "reliably" is with a sniper rifle against a target who was unaware that he was under attack, or was not moving the weapon.

In that case, I imagine a typical high-powered rifle bullet striking a weapon would render it unusable without a trip to the armorer at a minimum. Especially hitting the magazine or chamber area.

But my knowledge of this is all third-hand or worse, so I'd wait to hear from some of the experts (Norsesmithy comes to mind.)

[Swordguy]

The only way I can imagine hitting someone else's gun "reliably" is with a sniper rifle against a target who was unaware that he was under attack, or was not moving the weapon.

In that case, I imagine a typical high-powered rifle bullet striking a weapon would render it unusable without a trip to the armorer at a minimum. Especially hitting the magazine or chamber area.

But my knowledge of this is all third-hand or worse, so I'd wait to hear from some of the experts (Norsesmithy comes to mind.)

A hit against the slide of a handgun from anything bigger than a .32 will almost certainly render it unusable. I'm presuming you're hitting the side of the handgun, which means you'll dent the slide. That means it won't be able to move on the rails and absorb recoil. That's bad.

A .22 might just splatter on the frame, but I wouldn't want to get hit with anything bigger. I said a .32 because my father in law has a handgun from when he served in the Danish National Guard that was hit by a .32, and the slide's dented in. ANY actual rifle round will do more damage than a .32 pistol round.

This is all to say nothing about the damage to your hand when the weapon you're holding is suddenly torqued to the side, or your hand getting splattered with shrapnel from the impact. The bit in Black Hawk Down where the Ranger's weapon gets hit and he loses his finger from the impact isn't a Hollywood fantasy. It's straight from the book.

[Matthew]

Oh GOD - you were right. It was...was...

I rate it just under Gigli and Pearl Harbor in the spectrum of "good movies". I couldn't tell what the people were saying well over half the time, I couldn't tell which Transformer was which except for Optimus, Bumblebee, and Devastator (which really killed the awesome scene where Prime is fighting 3 on 1), and they walked out of a Smithsonian Hangar in DC into an aircraft graveyard in New Mexico!

Why do they keep letting Michael Bay make MOVIES?! *sob*

*pant, pant*

That does it, I'm getting a Guinness or five and going to bed. Hopeful, I'll wake up and think the whole movie was an alcohol-induced hallucination.
Yeah, we read a review that warned us beforehand, but we paid no heed at all. The biggest Transformers fan amongst us was ready to walk out after 45 minutes, but we suffered on. Guinness makes everything better... and erm... I thought the battle scenes were highly unrealistic (phew, back on topic there with a wild claim from left field). :smallbiggrin:

[Thane of Fife]

I thought the battle scenes were highly unrealistic (phew, back on topic there with a wild claim from left field). :smallbiggrin:

I actually recall reading a quote in the newspaper early during filming where some officer said that the movie, in his opinion, depicted how the army would actually fight against giant transforming robots from outer space. It was in an article on how Transformers 2 apparently had unprecedented amounts of military support.

[Storm Bringer]

Of course, you chaps are a lot more spit 'n polish than we are - that's for damn sure. I've never seen a Brit unit move sloppily. :smallwink:

Damm straight. The sargent major would rag us around the square for weeks if he thought we'd done our drill so badly even the yankies called it sloppy. And we'd deserve it:smallbiggrin:


Onto the subject of British Army Drill, I'm only an Ocdt, and I seem to have done more drill than some Americans. Drill is good for you

cool. what cap badge?

[Dervag]

Yeah, we read a review that warned us beforehand, but we paid no heed at all. The biggest Transformers fan amongst us was ready to walk out after 45 minutes, but we suffered on. Guinness makes everything better... and erm... I thought the battle scenes were highly unrealistic (phew, back on topic there with a wild claim from left field). :smallbiggrin:Unrealistic how?

[Matthew]

Unrealistic how?

It wasn't a true evaluation, just a joke about straying off topic. If you were to press me, though, I would say it was all those energy weapons, or maybe that ship borne gauss cannon/rail gun thing (though maybe such things exist, I have no idea).

[Dervag]

It wasn't a true evaluation, just a joke about straying off topic. If you were to press me, though, I would say it was all those energy weapons, or maybe that ship borne gauss cannon/rail gun thing (though maybe such things exist, I have no idea).Ship-based tactical lasers and gauss cannon are something the Navy is seriously looking into, and would look into harder if they had any access to the kind of improbably advanced materials and reactor tech the Transformers have access to.

Off the top of my head, I can think of several ways that improved power generation, room temperature superconductors, and such would make it easier to build shipboard free electron lasers.

[Raum]

I haven't seen the movie but both DARPA (http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/darpa-is-on-track-for-railgun-firing-of.html) and the Navy (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bae-producing-scaleddown-rail-gun-naval-weapon-01986/) are looking at / testing EM weapons. I haven't tried to follow it too closely but I seem to remember one of the biggest current challenges is degradation or deformation of the rails / barrel.

[Rasilak]

Yeah, the rail-/coilgun concept looks pretty feasible, and methinks, the DARPA could probably have it ready within years (heck, probably even 50 years ago), if they threw enough money after it (like, the sums sunk into the nuclear program, including the space race, which was mostly a ICBM showoff). And *if* it works, it will probably be first used on ships, because you've got your power supply right there, and railguns eat *lots* of power.
However, the improvement over regular artillery is probably not big enough to justify these investments (but not being limited by the speed of sound in the propellant gas is still a nice thing - practically unlimited range).
With feasible laser weapons, I'm a lot more sceptical. They tend to be expensive, fragile (not good for anything used in a warzone) and not that much better than conventional weapons. Maybe they have uses in niche applications (having no noticable recoil is nice), but they certainly won't make gunpowder obsolete (at least unless we invent very small and lightweight batteries).

[Diamondeye]

The Advanced Gun System for the DDG-1000 destroyers and probably for the CG(X) cruisers down the road is an electromagnetic gun system. The range estimates I've seen are on the order of 120 miles; far longer than any cannon or rocket artillery. Artillery-launched missiles such as ATACMS can compare in range but a shell is a lot cheaper than a missile.

[Hawriel]

I remember Populare Mechanics did an article about rail guns afew years ago. The consept ship was a try hull cruiser with three turret rail guns.

[alexi]

I refer you gentlemen (and ladies and laddies) to this thread: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118825

my knowledge of warfare is pretty much reformation to restoration. How deadly were pikes in other time periods? Do any period accounts talk about the deadliness of pikes? I know they were highly useful as defensive weapons and for battlefield control, but were they deadly?

[Deadmeat.GW]

Pikes were deadly due to the way people fought when pike blocks were the way forward.

But this is mainly because of mass behind all of those long, sharp sticks slowly being pushed into the opposing block of troops.

With pikes you don't trust at people, you push until they break and run.

[Matthew]

I refer you gentlemen (and ladies and laddies) to this thread: [D20/3e] Pike Discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118825)

my knowledge of warfare is pretty much reformation to restoration. How deadly were pikes in other time periods? Do any period accounts talk about the deadliness of pikes? I know they were highly useful as defensive weapons and for battlefield control, but were they deadly?

About as deadly as any other spear on the battlefield. The pike makes an appearance in the Illiad as a weapon used for ship to ship combat, and adapted for use on the foot in a particular situation. The pike phalanx was the primary weapon of the Greek successor states from the time of Alexander until their defeat by the Roman Republic. They fought with a sarissa said to be 18-24' long, and may have employed a small shield hung from the neck. Polybius tells us that their defeat was primarily a result of Roman unwillingness to fight on open ground, whilst modern historians refer to the neglect of that other important arm of Alexander's original army, the heavy cavalry.

Seemingly, pikes pretty much disappear from the western battlefield after that until the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries when they are employed to deadly effect by various European countries, most notably the Swiss. It should be understood that they were not used in isolation, but in combination with other pole arms and crossbows. The length of the pike varied during this period from something like 12-24', but seems to have most commonly been around 18' [i.e. shorter than the sarissa]. The ordinary pike should not be confused with the Awl Pike, which appears to have been designed to penetrate plate armour and was generally shorter.

[shadow_archmagi]

Question:

How accurate are bows? How accurate would your average archer be? It just occurred to me that generally whenever you hear tales of "skilled" archers, they tend to be able to hit extremely small targets that even gun-using snipers would be impressed by.

[Theodoric]

Question:

How accurate are bows? How accurate would your average archer be? It just occurred to me that generally whenever you hear tales of "skilled" archers, they tend to be able to hit extremely small targets that even gun-using snipers would be impressed by.
That's a single archer firing in a more or less direct way without too much arcing. In combat, alot of archer fire was more indirect and in a big arc, and in volleys.

[Swordguy]

Question:

How accurate are bows? How accurate would your average archer be? It just occurred to me that generally whenever you hear tales of "skilled" archers, they tend to be able to hit extremely small targets that even gun-using snipers would be impressed by.

The amount of "drop" is largely dependent on both the draw-weight of the bow (high velocity=less drop) and the design of the arrowhead (more weight at the tip=more drop), and the interplay between arrow and bow, and draw style/distance. So there's too many variables. :smallbiggrin:

That said, hitting a stationary, man-sized target with a direct shot with historical bows is reasonable out to about 75-100 yards, with 75 yards being the limit for most people doing it on a regular basis. Hitting a moving man-sized target is about half to 2/3rds of that. Hitting a deliberately evading man-sized target is going to be in the 25-30 yard region and on in. IIRC, direct fire (less than a 10 degree arc) from a historical English-style Longbow is limited to about 100 yards, but I'm quite prepared to be overruled by our resident archery guru, Adlan.

Deliberately hitting a single, man-sized target with arcing fire is virtually impossible. Deliberately hitting a moving, man-sized target with arcing fire is ludicrous in concept.

Deliberately hitting a stationary man-sized target from the back of a galloping horse is 10 yards or less (the shooting distance for the martial art of Japanese Horse Archery - Yabusame - is about 15 feet, and 2 out of 3 hits to a target is extremely good).

Keep in mind, this is combat, historical, archery. Modern accuracy is pretty insane, and with very specified equipment and accuracy-enhancers.

[Mike_G]

I second everything Swordguy said, with the addition that most military archers weren't aiming at a man sized target, but at a formation of men.

The same can be said for muskets. Until the development of a decent rifle, most infantry formations were close order, so putting shots on target basically means putting rounds in the target area and figuring that some will hit somebody in the formation.

[warrl]

Keep in mind, this is combat, historical, archery. Modern accuracy is pretty insane, and with very specified equipment and accuracy-enhancers.

Also modern archery is rarely done in combat. And I don't know how fragile/sensitive a bow with pulleys and attached weights really is, but it certainly looks like using it as a club would either throw something out of adjustment or break something.

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09132a.jpg

[Norsesmithy]

Yeah, modern bows definitely don't like being used as hammers, but then, neither did historical ones.

As far as accuracy goes, the Englishmen anyways were supposed to practice by firing clouts of arrows from formation, at a target that was a 20 foot diameter circle at various distances (out to 200 yards)

By the time your enemy is close enough for you to fire directly and pick your targets, with those massive clothyard shafts, you should, as an archer, be seriously thinking about either switching to your long knife or mallet, or running away.

[Fhaolan]

And a lot of those really impressive shots done in fiction are based on 'trick' shots.

There were (and I guess still are) people who specifically trained to shoot a coin flying through the air with a rifle (Annie Oakley, and others). The prior generations would have done similar concepts with bows and arrows. And like the magicians who do the bullet catch trick, there's still skill involved, but part of that skill is a bit of slight-at-hand to make it always come out right as far as the audience is concerned.

"Splitting the Willow" (where you put an arrow through a thin shaft like another arrow), rapid shot (where you have four or more arrows fired in *very* rapid succession), mounted shot (shooting while mounted on a horse) and other similar things are trained-for tricks that usually require some custom-made or specially altered equipment. For example, with mounted archery the trick tool is a thumb-ring string puller. This is what the Steppe Nomads, like the Mongols, used historically to increase the speed and accuracy of their shots. Rapid shot is almost always done with a low-power bow or by half-drawing a regular bow. Whenever I've seen performers doing Splitting the Willow, they use arrows with specially trimmed fletching so that the arrow spins (increasing accuracy), and at very accurately measured distances so that they know exactly how many times the arrow spins before it hits the willow.

And if they miss, the assistant always has a split willow hidden that they can switch that out before showing the results to the audience. Or some other kind of magic-show illusion is performed.

[13_CBS]

I must direct you, scholar-warriors of the Playground, to this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119364), which may or may not be relevant to your interests. :smallbiggrin:

[paddyfool]

Medieval longbows could be used to fire volleys etc. at enemy formation at anything up to 200 or 300 yards, but to punch through plate were only effective at short range, ie <30 yards. Accuracy, similarly, declines drastically with increased range. Speed of fire, not so much - a proficient archer was expected to get off 10 shots per minute regardless, and an expect 20.

It's worth noting the classic triumph of the longbow (Agincourt: ~900 british heavy infantry & 5000 longbowmen defeating ~20000 french infantry & cavalry) may have largely been down to terrain and weather.

[Dracomorph]

I have a few questions, all of which are more or less unrelated to each other. Given how helpful everyone on this thread is, I'm hoping that's not a problem.

1) Does anyone know whether or not this guy (http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/index.htm) is legitimate? (Not, "are his swords near-accurate bronze age replicas" just "is this site trying to rip me off") I've always thought it would be incredibly neat to hold a Canaanite sword in hand. It seems to me like an honest shop, but I am something of an easy mark.

2) How common were flammards/flammenschwerts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamberge)? Were they a common battlefield sight during certain eras, or were they mostly an interesting (perfectly usable) historical footnote?

[Swordguy]

I have a few questions, all of which are more or less unrelated to each other. Given how helpful everyone on this thread is, I'm hoping that's not a problem.

1) Does anyone know whether or not this guy (http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/index.htm) is legitimate? (Not, "are his swords near-accurate bronze age replicas" just "is this site trying to rip me off") I've always thought it would be incredibly neat to hold a Canaanite sword in hand. It seems to me like an honest shop, but I am something of an easy mark.

Not sure - his prices seem reasonable for what he's selling. Bronze Age swords aren't tempered, which is one of the more difficult (read: expensive) parts of swordsmithing. $200-$300 US sounds about right. I'm concerned about his prices for hilting the weapons; adding an extra 100 pounds for what are pretty simple hilts is a little excessive, in my opinion. "Excellent" replicas from Del Tin or Albion swords are in the $700-1200 US range, and his swords are in the $300-400 range. With the lack of tempering and simple (albeit correct) hilts, I'm feeling he's priced a little on the high end, all things considered.

Also, I'd like to see his references or customer satisfaction notes. That's not anything against him; I ALWAYS check those when thinking about using a new smith



2) How common were flammards/flammenschwerts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamberge)? Were they a common battlefield sight during certain eras, or were they mostly an interesting (perfectly usable) historical footnote?

From what I understand, not especially common as a combat weapon. Of course, the actual percentage will never be known, but of the extant combat-worth weapons we have, flammenschwerts make up a pretty small portion. They're slightly more common as parade swords. I think a good equivalent would be driving on the highway and seeing a vintage car - they aren't common, so you notice when you see one...but they aren't completely unknown either.

[Dervag]

They [flammenschwerts] look like they'd be significantly harder to make, and I suspect that the process of making a sword wavy-bladed like that is likely to introduce structural flaws.

[Tam_OConnor]

I'm curious: what's the advantage of a warhammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_hammer2.jpg) as opposed to a flanged mace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maces.jpg)? The reverse? Would there be any reason to use either against an unarmored opponent, assuming one also had access to a warsword?

Moving further along that thought: Assuming the standard fantasy 'no guns allowed milieu' and sailing ships, would shipboard marines ever be equipped in plate?

Lastly: the kukri. I'm aware they suffer under the same hype as various other foreign weapons. I've got a low-grade one of my own, and it functions rather well as a brush knife. I'm curious what the thread thinks of them. Also, since mine is currently hiltless (again, low-grade), I'm wondering at the viability of giving it a knuckle-guard, or some manner of guard at all. Thoughts and recommendations?

EDIT: Oh, I just remembered. The Dresden Files (which I recommend highly; the books, not the TV show) includes a breastplate that has been lined in kelvar. Practicality?

Much thanks.

[Atanuero]

I'm curious: what's the advantage of a warhammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_hammer2.jpg) as opposed to a flanged mace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maces.jpg)? The reverse? Would there be any reason to use either against an unarmored opponent, assuming one also had access to a warsword?

Moving further along that thought: Assuming the standard fantasy 'no guns allowed milieu' and sailing ships, would shipboard marines ever be equipped in plate?

Your first question: warhammers, which are not always shaped like that (http://medieval.stormthecastle.com/armorypages/medieval_war_hammer.htm), are more balanced. A huge macehead like that will probably not only make the weapon heavier, but make it extremely top-heavy and cumbersome. The pointed side of a warhammer can be used as a pick, which has a variety of uses, from piercing armor, to making handholds, to pull at something, or even as a makeshift crowbar. Also, historically it required much less training to be able to use a warhammer, as many peasants or workers already were familiar with its shape and heft (as a tool, even if conventional hammers are smaller) and would simply need to be taught to use it in combat. A flanged mace is a bit more cumbersome and offensive, making it a somewhat uncommon and expensive choice in medieval times. Also, warhammers were used as early as the Dark Ages by Nordic warriors, and the flanged mace is High Middle Age and later. Not to mention, balanced weapon=easier parries.

Historically, it was totally infeasible to be wearing any sort of metal armor, and especially not full plate on a ship. If you fell into the water, which is fairly possible when fighting on a ship, you would drown in armor. Full plate weighs dozens of pounds and is difficult to stand up in, let alone make swimming movements. Sailors typically went unarmored, relying more on agility and skill with their swords to defend themselves. Pirates, possibly the most successful ship fighters before modern times, barely wore clothes into battle, and certainly nothing that could protect one from a sword or gun.

[Spiryt]

Your first question: warhammers, which are not always shaped like that (http://medieval.stormthecastle.com/armorypages/medieval_war_hammer.htm), are more balanced. A huge macehead like that will probably not only make the weapon heavier, but make it extremely top-heavy and cumbersome.
Uh, I've never really heard about anything like that... Any sources?
Maces and warhammers weren't really "standard" in terms of weight and balance - just like any other weapon wasn't. And what you mean by "huge" maceheads?

The main difference would obviously be shape of striking surface - the exact effects are really material for experiments with replicas.


Also, warhammers were used as early as the Dark Ages by Nordic warriors, and the flanged mace is High Middle Age and later.

Any source of that? :smallconfused:

Now honestly, I've never heard a mention about warhammer in any saga, book, or use of something like that by any Viking reenactors. Warhammers in Europe are generally considered XVth century in Europe.



Historically, it was totally infeasible to be wearing any sort of metal armor, and especially full plate. If you fell into the water, which is likely when fighting on a ship, you would drown. Full plate weighs dozens of pounds. Sailors typically went unarmored, relying more on agility and skill with their swords to defend themselves. Pirates, possibly the most successful ship fighters before modern times, barely wore clothes into battle, and certainly nothing that could protect one from a sword or gun.

Link (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=6703)
Link 2 (http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=11952)

EDIT:


and is difficult to stand up in

And this is huge nonsense, which was proven wrong dozens of times, even in this very thread.

[Raum]

Also, historically it required much less training to be able to use a warhammer, as many peasants or workers already were familiar with its shape and heft (as a tool, even if conventional hammers are smaller) and would simply need to be taught to use it in combat. A mace is essentially a club - it has a 360 degree striking surface. Conversely, a warhammer has two specific striking surfaces. Wouldn't the warhammer require more training / practice to use? When it twists in your hand you have an issue that simply doesn't occur with the mace.


Historically, it was totally infeasible to be wearing any sort of metal armor, and especially not full plate on a ship. If you fell into the water, which is fairly possible when fighting on a ship, you would drown in armor. I think cost and space requirements were more of an issue than weight. Common sailors simply couldn't afford it. As for falling overboard, you're probably dead whether or not you have armor on. By the time a sailing ship (even when not in battle) can turn around and tack back to the spot, you're most likely out of sight...and that's assuming you were important enough for the captain to choose turning around. Even modern sailors are generally lost if they fall off a ship underway.


Full plate weighs dozens of pounds and is difficult to stand up in, let alone make swimming movements. As pointed out, this popular myth has been refuted many times.


Sailors typically went unarmored, relying more on agility and skill with their swords to defend themselves. Pirates, possibly the most successful ship fighters before modern times, barely wore clothes into battle, and certainly nothing that could protect one from a sword or gun.Err, you do realize the 'age of piracy' only lasted about twenty thirty* years? That hardly qualifies them as "the most successful ship fighters before modern times". It's even worse when you look at their targets - civilian merchant ships. Pirates were seldom willing to take on anyone's professional navy. They did on occasion and even had a few spectacular successes (generally due to numbers) - but they were far from common.

*Edit - looked it up, the "Golden Age of Piracy" is commonly defined as the end of the 17th century through the first quarter of the 18th. The broadest definitions start counting as early as 1650 but almost all end prior to 1730.

[Raum]

I'm curious: what's the advantage of a warhammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War_hammer2.jpg) as opposed to a flanged mace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maces.jpg)? The reverse? Would there be any reason to use either against an unarmored opponent, assuming one also had access to a warsword?Some general thoughts - the warhammer is lighter than most maces and, given a 'spike' striking surface can probably still assert more PSI on target. The mace may be easier to use. I suspect the mace would be easier to make and therefor cheaper, but someone who knows more of smithing may be able to correct me.

Against an unarmored opponent, it doesn't really matter which weapon you use. Any of the three would be crippling or deadly.


Moving further along that thought: Assuming the standard fantasy 'no guns allowed milieu' and sailing ships, would shipboard marines ever be equipped in plate?Cost and availability will be a major factor but it's certainly possible. Spiryt had links to a couple pictures.


Lastly: the kukri. I'm aware they suffer under the same hype as various other foreign weapons. I've got a low-grade one of my own, and it functions rather well as a brush knife. I'm curious what the thread thinks of them. Also, since mine is currently hiltless (again, low-grade), I'm wondering at the viability of giving it a knuckle-guard, or some manner of guard at all. Thoughts and recommendations?Guards depend on the purpose / use of the weapon. Rapiers (which emphasized point work heavily) have extensive guards to protect the hand. However a kukri is, in many ways, more similar to an axe. Unless you're planning on punching with it, even a small knuckle guard is probably unnecessary.


EDIT: Oh, I just remembered. The Dresden Files (which I recommend highly; the books, not the TV show) includes a breastplate that has been lined in kelvar. Practicality?While I like the books, I suspect a full breast plate on top of kevlar is probably going to add more weight than it does protection. It's worth pointing out that Class III kevlar armor (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/interceptor.htm) already has ceramic plates in addition to the kevlar.

[Dervag]

A mace is essentially a club - it has a 360 degree striking surface. Conversely, a warhammer has two specific striking surfaces. Wouldn't the warhammer require more training / practice to use? When it twists in your hand you have an issue that simply doesn't occur with the mace.Yes, but it's a very small issue- the same issue you face with any bladed weapon.

You're not handing out well-made melee weapons of any kind to people who are so unpracticed they can't stop the weapon from turning in their hands under normal conditions. Anyone who can't handle a weapon more complicated than a club isn't going to last long enough on a medieval battlefield to have much effect on overall weapon preferences.

[Philistine]

A mace is essentially a club - it has a 360 degree striking surface. Conversely, a warhammer has two specific striking surfaces. Wouldn't the warhammer require more training / practice to use? When it twists in your hand you have an issue that simply doesn't occur with the mace.

How hard is it to use a hammer to drive nails without it turning in your hand? Or to use an axe to chop wood? Granted that nails and trees don't usually dodge when you swing at them, but I really don't see this being that big a problem.

[Construct]

1) Does anyone know whether or not this guy (http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/index.htm) is legitimate? (Not, "are his swords near-accurate bronze age replicas" just "is this site trying to rip me off") I've always thought it would be incredibly neat to hold a Canaanite sword in hand. It seems to me like an honest shop, but I am something of an easy mark.The site's legit and the swords are accurate, famously so. There are numerous threads on MyArmoury (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=167088) and SwordForum (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=92000) attesting to the quality of Neil's work. As noted though, disregard the handle kits; what you're paying for there is labour not skill so you may as well have the satisfaction of doing it yourself.

[Swordguy]

The site's legit and the swords are accurate, famously so. There are numerous threads on MyArmoury (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=167088) and SwordForum (http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?t=92000) attesting to the quality of Neil's work. As noted though, disregard the handle kits; what you're paying for there is labour not skill so you may as well have the satisfaction of doing it yourself.

Oh, good - if he's got references, I'll add him to my list of swordsmiths to buy from. Bronze Age stuff is a gaping hole in my collection.




How hard is it to use a hammer to drive nails without it turning in your hand? Or to use an axe to chop wood? Granted that nails and trees don't usually dodge when you swing at them, but I really don't see this being that big a problem.

The difference is in the shape of the handle - if a handle is round, it'll turn in your hand a LOT. If the handle is oval (narrow edge toward your first knuckle) it won't. A great number of period warhammers (and every mace I can think of) have round grips. The mace doesn't care, since it's got a 360-degree striking surface, but the warhammer does. That could very well be an issue.

[Philistine]

The difference is in the shape of the handle - if a handle is round, it'll turn in your hand a LOT. If the handle is oval (narrow edge toward your first knuckle) it won't. A great number of period warhammers (and every mace I can think of) have round grips. The mace doesn't care, since it's got a 360-degree striking surface, but the warhammer does. That could very well be an issue.

Right, but surely there aren't a lot of technical challenges involved in flattening the grip slightly, are there? It seems like the biggest difficulty there is that someone has to think of the idea. Not so?

[Fhaolan]

The difference is in the shape of the handle - if a handle is round, it'll turn in your hand a LOT. If the handle is oval (narrow edge toward your first knuckle) it won't. A great number of period warhammers (and every mace I can think of) have round grips. The mace doesn't care, since it's got a 360-degree striking surface, but the warhammer does. That could very well be an issue.

Which is why the warhammers (and battleaxes) that I like tend to be ones with wooden handles that have definate oval or square cross-sections.

[Swordguy]

Right, but surely there aren't a lot of technical challenges involved in flattening the grip slightly, are there? It seems like the biggest difficulty there is that someone has to think of the idea. Not so?

No technical challenges at all, really. They just didn't do it in a lot of cases. I have no idea why. I'd speculate the round-grip stuff is either parade or showpiece gear, or else "munition"-grade, ie, mass-produced at the lowest cost possible.

Remember, several of the extant weapons are round-gripped...just because it's extant doesn't mean it's a "combat" weapon.

[Spiryt]

What with durability of round cross section? Wouldn't it be better? I'm not really good with wood, but certainly with round cross section you can live grains pretty intact?

And maybe users of the round grips were good enough do don't bother about such "tips" :smalltongue: :smallwink:

[Raum]

Yes, but it's a very small issue- the same issue you face with any bladed weapon.I agree - the point was addressing that training. If I have a relatively untrained person they'll either get a pointy stick (spear) or a club (mace). The spear is going to be better in most military situations (largely due to reach) but either can be used with a few weeks 'basic training'. Swords can't really be learned that fast...which is part of what gave feudalism life.


How hard is it to use a hammer to drive nails without it turning in your hand? Or to use an axe to chop wood? Granted that nails and trees don't usually dodge when you swing at them, but I really don't see this being that big a problem.There's a big difference between using something as a tool and using it as a weapon. If it were that easy, all of us growing up in the 80s would have become karate experts from waxing cars. :smallwink:

[Deadmeat.GW]

The difference is in the shape of the handle - if a handle is round, it'll turn in your hand a LOT. If the handle is oval (narrow edge toward your first knuckle) it won't. A great number of period warhammers (and every mace I can think of) have round grips. The mace doesn't care, since it's got a 360-degree striking surface, but the warhammer does. That could very well be an issue.

Almost all maces and flanged maces I have had were not round but very, very slightly oval shaped.
Kinda like most hammers you could find at a iron monger today.
Almost round but not quite.

It is not immediately obvious but they are not perfectly round.
Even the period ones are rarely perfectly round due to the way most were produced.
But...it is usually only a few millimeters as if it is more a flaw then an intentional thing.

[deuxhero]

Question (hope I am asking this right) How exactly would one go about preserving an axe or a lance (pretty much any non sword melee weapon for that matter) like a sheathe does for a sword?

[Fhaolan]

Question (hope I am asking this right) How exactly would one go about preserving an axe or a lance (pretty much any non sword melee weapon for that matter) like a sheathe does for a sword?

Oiled rags wrapped around it, pretty much. You're not concerned with 'quick draws' with those kinds of weapons in RL.

[Lapak]

Oiled rags wrapped around it, pretty much. You're not concerned with 'quick draws' with those kinds of weapons in RL.With axes, actually, I've made purpose-specific leather covers to protect the business end. Those weren't battle-axes, but I imagine that the theory is much the same. The ones I made protected the blade but wouldn't do anything to protect the handle. And yes, they were secured in a way that would make them far harder to get ready than just drawing a sword; there's no real way around that.

[deuxhero]

thanks for the answers.

[Mando Knight]

Question! (so as not to be skipped over as easily...)

Are there any kind of sword-like blades made for throwing (similar to a tomahawk or francisca in size/weight)?

[Fhaolan]

Question! (so as not to be skipped over as easily...)

Are there any kind of sword-like blades made for throwing (similar to a tomahawk or francisca in size/weight)?

Machetes, believe it or not. The biggest variant I've seen that was still one-handed in RL was called a Sundang and was from the Philippenes. I usually see people throw machetes and their variants underhand.

[Fhaolan]

With axes, actually, I've made purpose-specific leather covers to protect the business end. Those weren't battle-axes, but I imagine that the theory is much the same. The ones I made protected the blade but wouldn't do anything to protect the handle. And yes, they were secured in a way that would make them far harder to get ready than just drawing a sword; there's no real way around that.

Yeah, I've done this too, but I was thinking in terms of 'historically what did they do'. I've never seen sheaths for anything other than dagger/sword/similar in museums. And most of the scabbards I've seen were actually wood with leather coverings. Probably because pure leather scabbards tend to rot away faster, and therefore don't show up in museums.

That's one of the difficulties with this kind of thing. If a fragment doesn't survive, or a drawing, or a mention in some kind of document, we have no real clear idea if they did it or not. The pieces that survive the best to be put into museums tend to be decorative items that never saw serious use, and art/literature is always somewhat suspect.

[Deadmeat.GW]

People assume it was oiled rags or oiled soft leathers that were used. Stuff that does not preserve very well for long periods of time.

The main reason for that is that for instance tribes in Mongolia still do this to this day with that sort of tools/weapons.

Going from there we can assume this is the case then too.

[Tam_OConnor]

Thanks all!

Further question: what would be the typical weapons load-out on someone expected to be a versatile fighter? In the case of a knight, I'd expect lance for charges, sword for unarmored and hammer/mace for armored. Primarily pre-gunpowder, but a variety of cultures would be appreciated.

[13_CBS]

In the case of a knight, I'd expect lance for charges, sword for unarmored and hammer/mace for armored. Primarily pre-gunpowder, but a variety of cultures would be appreciated.

With the right kind of sword and some training in grappling, an armored mounted warrior could easily make do with just a lance and a sword. Lance for couching, sword for everything else.

[saimol]

Thanks all!

Further question: what would be the typical weapons load-out on someone expected to be a versatile fighter? In the case of a knight, I'd expect lance for charges, sword for unarmored and hammer/mace for armored. Primarily pre-gunpowder, but a variety of cultures would be appreciated.

There is no such thing as 'versatile fighter'. For normal human it is possible to master only one type of weapon. In reality the 'best' weapon for any given situation is the one you know how to use most efectively. All weapons are equally deadly no matter if your opponent is armored or not. (In real armored fights swords were mostly used for stabing opponent to places where armor don't cover like joints).

If you are mounted then you will use lance or a spear in charge formation, but besides that you basicaly just chose the weapon you like most and stick with it.

And majority of knights used swords btw.

[Swordguy]

There is no such thing as 'versatile fighter'. For normal human it is possible to master only one type of weapon. In reality the 'best' weapon for any given situation is the one you know how to use most efectively. All weapons are equally deadly no matter if your opponent is armored or not. (In real armored fights swords were mostly used for stabing opponent to places where armor don't cover like joints).

If you are mounted then you will use lance or a spear in charge formation, but besides that you basicaly just chose the weapon you like most and stick with it.

And majority of knights used swords btw.

You should take note of what it took to become a "Master of Fence" in Europe. Let's take what it took to be considered a master for both the Lichtenauer school (mid 1300's German), and, oh, I don't know...let's say the Dardi (an early 1400's Italian) school.

Dardi
-Sidesword
-Sidesword with shield (3 styles of shield), a dagger, gauntlet or a cape
-Two-handed sword
-Poleaxe
-Five polearms; halberd, partisan, bill, spear, and pike
-single dagger
-bare-handed v dagger
-dagger and cloak


Lichtenauer
-Longsword
-Sword and buckler
-dagger
-Messer
-Messer & dueling shield
-dueling shields
-Unarmed grappling in both armoured and unarmoured combat
-Some mounted combat

Saying that one could only "master" a single weapon, is, unfortunately, incorrect.

[Mando Knight]

Saying that one could only "master" a single weapon, is, unfortunately, incorrect.

It shows quite the opposite, I'd say. In order to "master" one weapon, you would have to be quite proficient in a number of weapons first: to truly master your own weapon, you need to know how to avoid gutting yourself on your opponent's weapon as well. Especially since different weapons have different stances and parries based on their size and shape. (You shouldn't parry the same with a pole axe as you would with an epee, for example... if you can parry with an axe. I've never tried any axe-fighting styles.)

[Swordguy]

You should take a look at the Association of Renaissance Martial Artists (http://www.thearma.org/RANKING.htm) ranking system. It's a reasonable model of the historic methods for ranking fighters. To whit,

"..we adopt the tradition of the 16th century German Fechtschulen and the Company of London Masters of Defence in using the four-level Rating system they employed (a system which they themselves had borrowed form colleges of the day)"

A certification in each weapon style requires both written and oral testing, and most importantly, a Free-sparring bout against,

"4-8 different student opponents of equal or lesser rating must be faced with the identical weapon/weapon combination, as well as the same number with a dissimilar weapon/weapon combination (including long-sword, at least one pole-arm, and one shield). Each individual bout continues for three separate clean hits and is followed consecutively by another bout until all have been completed."


So, understanding that ARMA is more or less doing things accurately, we can extrapolate that to understand that each of the weapons I listed above would be tested in free-play against several of the other weapons (as you rightly point out, since you often face dissimilar weapons). But to be a master of the disciplines I listed, you needed to do this with ALL of the weapons in that art. Thusly, a master of Lichtenauer would be able to hold his own in each of the weapons listed, against every single other weapon in the total system.

Now, there is the terminology difference here, between Master, and "master", where the latter is where you devote your entire life to the study of a single weapon style. But that's not a common thing. In fact, I can't think of a single historical European "Master" who did that. These people fought for a living, in a variety of different situations and against a variety of different combinations of arms and armor. When possible, they'd use the right tool for the job, not just rely on a single weapon that may or may not offer them the best chance of surviving an encounter. I say "Master" and mean someone fully versed in the intricacies of the usage of the weapon in all reasonably-expected situations, and is technically capable of teaching said weapon to another person (even if they aren't a good teacher).

Lastly, while a knight's immediate armory wouldn't look like Gordon Freeman's weapons collection, he wouldn't carry around a single weapon either. Assuming a mounted knight in, say, the 13th century, it'd be reasonable to have him with a lance/spear and shield for the charge, an arming sword on his belt counterbalanced with a dagger on the right hip, and a mace, hand axe, or hammer in a ring on the saddle (the horse can carry plenty of weight, remember). More than that is unlikely, for space reasons, if nothing else.

[saimol]

There is a big diference between being taught to use a weapon and mastering it. There is even bigger diference between tournament, self-defence and actual combat styles. Yes a 'master of fence' or 'master of arms' or even every knight to some extent had to know how to use many diferent weapons. However, tournaments put aside, knights used only their 'weapon of choice' when goint to the battlefield. And despite being taught to use many weapons (and being better with them than anyone who werent) doesn't mean that you master all of them. Dardi for instance specialised in sidesword, teaching other weapons only to much lesser extent.

As far as i understand it (my appologies if i misunderstood) the question was about knight going to real battle. In that case said knight would certaily wield a one handed weapon and a shield, unless ofcourse in case of charge formation. Most knights would chose a good sword, however an axe, falchion (which is one hand weapon in reality), mace, or flailing morningstar are also considerable choices.

As far as two handed weapons goes, a two handed swords were used almost only in tournaments. The reason is simple: in battlefield you have to hold the formation. And a space needed to efectively swing a two handed sword is too big for formation. I said almost since there was one atempt to use two handed swords on the battlefield: certain german landsknecht used them however that tactic proved to be inefficient.

The polearms were very widely used alas not by knights who only wielded them during tournaments. And unless your opponent is also wielding a polearm
such weapon is inefective in one on one combat.

All styles using daggers are used for self-defence only and maybe for some tournaments, i'm not sure about that.

All knights had to learn to fight both on foot and mounted (and on the battlefield they preferred mounted).

To make things clear i'm talking about middle ages period.

[saimol]

So, understanding that ARMA is more or less doing things accurately, we can extrapolate that to understand that each of the weapons I listed above would be tested in free-play against several of the other weapons (as you rightly point out, since you often face dissimilar weapons). But to be a master of the disciplines I listed, you needed to do this with ALL of the weapons in that art. Thusly, a master of Lichtenauer would be able to hold his own in each of the weapons listed, against every single other weapon in the total system.


Im sorry but i'd really like to see someone armed with a dagger dueling an opponent wielding a sword and buckler. Unless ofcourse there is a strict set of rules and 'legal' actions. I dont know the organisation you mentioned, but i myself am participating in movement which involves both tournament and 'survival' fights. And from what i read so far, to me ARMA seems to be focused on tournament fights. Also it is Association of Renaissance Martial Artists. In renaissance because of wide use of gunpowder melee combat lost its importance and started to differ greately from what it used to be in middle ages. Therefore many of combat styles were created to be used only in tournaments, duels or against an unarmored opponent.

[Swordguy]

Im sorry but i'd really like to see someone armed with a dagger dueling an opponent wielding a sword and buckler. Unless ofcourse there is a strict set of rules and 'legal' actions. I dont know the organisation you mentioned, but i myself am participating in movement which involves both tournament and 'survival' fights. And from what i read so far, to me ARMA seems to be focused on tournament fights. Also it is Association of Renaissance Martial Artists. In renaissance because of wide use of gunpowder melee combat lost its importance and started to differ greately from what it used to be in middle ages. Therefore many of combat styles were created to be used only in tournaments, duels or against an unarmored opponent.

Go read their site. 'Renaissance' is a name, not the entirety of the organization. They teach MS I.33, for one thing (1200's Sword & buckler), plus longsword, plus fighting in harness, plus...

Well, just go look at the site. They're the gold standard in European Martial Arts in the US, and if you're into it, you should read up on their practices and standards anyway.

(Oh, and someone with a dagger certainly can take on a sword&buckler fighter. You're talking to an ARMA Free Scholar, who's tested in precisely that circumstance. It's about intelligent zoning, isolating the attacking arm, neutralizing it, and finishing the opponent. Knowledge of wrestlings is helpful.)

[Matthew]

I would like to hear from what sources Saimol is deriving his information, as it does not seem to be confusion over the term "master" that is the problem here, but an honest (if misguided) assertion that a medieval warrior contented himself with the use of one weapon above others on the battlefield. That is not to say that I could not imagine it being the case, but the only evidence I have ever come across makes for quite the opposite understanding.

[saimol]

Not to sound rude but here in Europe we reconstructors make fun of american organisations who claim they are doing things 'the way they were'.

This is just a joke. I hope you don't see this as an insult.

Now, since you are fighter yourself, answer some questions please.
How do you determine winner of the duel? Do you have to score a certain number of hits or knock your opponent on the ground? Do you allow thrusts? Do you hit with full force or stop the hit before it connects? What are legal hit locations?

[saimol]

I would like to hear from what sources Saimol is deriving his information, as it does not seem to be confusion over the term "master" that is the problem here, but an honest (if misguided) assertion that a medieval warrior contented himself with the use of one weapon above others on the battlefield. That is not to say that I could not imagine it being the case, but the only evidence I have ever come across makes for quite the opposite understanding.

Our organisation is co-operating with historians, archeologists and other reconstructor organisations.

It is really simple: a fighter on foot carries only one weapon to the battlefield, unless he also carries a spear or similar weapon in which case he also carries one hand weapon. A mounted fighter may have one extra weapon attached to saddle in case he drops his weapon. In battle you dont swich weapons unless you lose yours. There is simply no time for that.
Please note that i said 'carries' not 'have'. A knight may have many diferent weapons which he can use and is good at them, however when it is time to fight he takes one he is best at. Once again this is not the case in tournaments.

[Raum]

Our organisation is co-operating with historians, archeologists and other reconstructor organisations.What organization are you referring to?

[Matthew]

Our organisation is co-operating with historians, archaeologists and other reconstructor organisations.

It is really simple: a fighter on foot carries only one weapon to the battlefield, unless he also carries a spear or similar weapon in which case he also carries one hand weapon. A mounted fighter may have one extra weapon attached to saddle in case he drops his weapon. In battle you don't switch weapons unless you lose yours. There is simply no time for that.
Please note that i said 'carries' not 'have'. A knight may have many different weapons which he can use and is good at them, however when it is time to fight he takes one he is best at. Once again this is not the case in tournaments.

Which historians/archaeologists, what organisation? I believe I understand the idea you are proposing, but I have no idea how you came to regard it as an objective fact.

There may also be some degree of misunderstanding as to where lies the point of contact. I do not think anybody is suggesting that a medieval combatant would carry around several weapons that all do more or less the same thing.

[saimol]

We co-operate with highest ranking history and archaeology professors in our country and we read most of publishings on our subject by historians of other europe countries. We also keep in touch with reconstructors in Poland, Italy, England, Czech Republic and some others. Our main priority is historical accuracy.

And for the fact that you dont go to battle covered in weapons - besides the fact it is stated in historcal documents, it is obvious for anyone who ever tried participating in battle. You simply want as little extra weight on you as you can get without losing essential protection.

[Matthew]

And for the fact that you dont go to battle covered in weapons - besides the fact it is stated in historcal documents, it is obvious for anyone who ever tried participating in battle. You simply want as little extra weight on you as you can get without losing essential protection.

I think you may be having a linguistic disconnect with what is being said here; nobody is suggesting that a person go into battle covered with weapons, but plenty of historical texts suggest different armaments were employed by the same individuals at different times and under different conditions. The example that springs to mind is Richard Coeur de Lion, who is depicted shooting a crossbow, couching a lance, wielding a sword, and hefting a Dane axe all in the same text, but in different circumstances.

[saimol]

I think you may be having a linguistic disconnect with what is being said here; nobody is suggesting that a person go into battle covered with weapons, but plenty of historical texts suggest different armaments were employed by the same individuals at different times and under different conditions. The example that springs to mind is Richard Coeur de Lion, who is depicted shooting a crossbow, couching a lance, wielding a sword, and hefting a Dane axe all in the same text, but in different circumstances.

Sorry i may have misinterpreted what you said. Well of course, a crossbow is ranged weapon, lance is used while mounted and a sword is close melee weapon. As for the axe i didn't quite get that. Did he picked up the axe after losing his sword? Or did he wielded axe in diferent battle in the same text? Anyway you are talking about important person. We cant even rule out the posibility that most details in the text were made up by whoever were writing it to make the king look more awesome. (I'm not saying that is was made up, i'm saying that such things happened quite often) Also as the saying goes: an exception only proves the rule right :smallsmile:

[Matthew]

Sorry I may have misinterpreted what you said. Well of course, a crossbow is ranged weapon, lance is used while mounted and a sword is close melee weapon. As for the axe i didn't quite get that. Did he picked up the axe after losing his sword? Or did he wielded axe in diferent battle in the same text? Anyway you are talking about important person. We cant even rule out the posibility that most details in the text were made up by whoever were writing it to make the king look more awesome. (I'm not saying that is was made up, i'm saying that such things happened quite often) Also as the saying goes: an exception only proves the rule right :smallsmile:

No worries. As I recall, Richard employs a Dane axe at the relief of Jaffa, shield hung at his neck, as he has arrived by ship and has no horse. There are fairly numerous books of arms that exhort knights and men-at-arms to be skilled in a variety of weaponry, but that suggests that many were not.

A more explicit episode occurs in Lazamon's Brut (twelfth century Middle English fantastical history) where King Morpidus, rides out with what the author considers to be a full compliment of arms: a sword, a quiver full of arrows, a bow (very strong), a spear (very long), at his saddle an axe and on the other side a hondseax (probably a knife). (Interestingly, Charlemagne's assize of arms specifies something similar for horsemen raised by an Abbot: Charlemagne’s way of raising troops (http://www.deremilitari.org/2009/07/charlemagnes-way-of-raising-troops/)).

He fights a sea monster, shooting it full of arrows whilst mounted and then charging it with his spear, before laying on with his sword. Easier to carry more gear when mounted, no doubt!

[Dervag]

There is no such thing as 'versatile fighter'. For normal human it is possible to master only one type of weapon. In reality the 'best' weapon for any given situation is the one you know how to use most efectively. All weapons are equally deadly no matter if your opponent is armored or not. (In real armored fights swords were mostly used for stabing opponent to places where armor don't cover like joints).If all weapons are equally deadly regardless of whether your enemy is armored, why did everyone who could afford it wear armor?

I would only wear armor that protected me from at least some weapons, speaking for myself. Armor that did not protect me from any weapons would be worse than useless. Armor that did protect me from some weapons would make me far harder to kill with those weapons. In which case it would be false that "all weapons are equally deadly no matter if your opponent is armored or not." Armor that protects, say, 70% of my body from arrows will make a bow far less deadly against me, much less so than some other weapon better suited to fighting enemies in armor.


Not to sound rude but here in Europe we reconstructors make fun of american organisations who claim they are doing things 'the way they were'.

This is just a joke. I hope you don't see this as an insult.And how, pray tell, do you do it? What historical sources do you base your efforts on? Are they different from the ones American groups use? If so, are they better? If so, why?

[Deadmeat.GW]

There is a big diference between being taught to use a weapon and mastering it. There is even bigger diference between tournament, self-defence and actual combat styles. Yes a 'master of fence' or 'master of arms' or even every knight to some extent had to know how to use many diferent weapons. However, tournaments put aside, knights used only their 'weapon of choice' when goint to the battlefield. And despite being taught to use many weapons (and being better with them than anyone who werent) doesn't mean that you master all of them. Dardi for instance specialised in sidesword, teaching other weapons only to much lesser extent.

As far as i understand it (my appologies if i misunderstood) the question was about knight going to real battle. In that case said knight would certaily wield a one handed weapon and a shield, unless ofcourse in case of charge formation. Most knights would chose a good sword, however an axe, falchion (which is one hand weapon in reality), mace, or flailing morningstar are also considerable choices.

As far as two handed weapons goes, a two handed swords were used almost only in tournaments. The reason is simple: in battlefield you have to hold the formation. And a space needed to efectively swing a two handed sword is too big for formation. I said almost since there was one atempt to use two handed swords on the battlefield: certain german landsknecht used them however that tactic proved to be inefficient.

The polearms were very widely used alas not by knights who only wielded them during tournaments. And unless your opponent is also wielding a polearm
such weapon is inefective in one on one combat.

All styles using daggers are used for self-defence only and maybe for some tournaments, i'm not sure about that.

All knights had to learn to fight both on foot and mounted (and on the battlefield they preferred mounted).

To make things clear i'm talking about middle ages period.

Just as a beside the Renaissance claim in the ARMA has actually been proven to be wrong for a while, just that nobody has gone around and changed that.

They include now middle and high middle ages in their repertoire with some dabbling in the other time periods but as there is no information about how people would fight those are taken with a grain of salt.

Remember the ARMA does work together with the Leeds Royal Armories on some stuff. And several other organisations which recreate old weapon fighting styles.

On to the bit about the weapons...
If you had the money in my European group you were required to have on you a main weapon (double handed or if not with a buckler/shield), a dagger and a side arm. Only for the tourney bouts would you be allowed to put extra weapons to the side (and even then most people would keep either the dagger or side arm with them because far too many of the techniques involve a throw where you could loose a weapon or disarming techniques through scissors/joint locks.

If you had a mount the only thing you did not carry around all the time was a lance which you would have a squire or arms man hand to you before you went to battle (or grabbed it yourself if when you go) but you would have the possibility to carry an extra main weapon for different circumstances on the horse and all but the poorest would do so.

This is borne out by many, many medieval texts.

[Deadmeat.GW]

There is a big diference between being taught to use a weapon and mastering it. There is even bigger diference between tournament, self-defence and actual combat styles. Yes a 'master of fence' or 'master of arms' or even every knight to some extent had to know how to use many diferent weapons. However, tournaments put aside, knights used only their 'weapon of choice' when goint to the battlefield. And despite being taught to use many weapons (and being better with them than anyone who werent) doesn't mean that you master all of them. Dardi for instance specialised in sidesword, teaching other weapons only to much lesser extent.

As far as i understand it (my appologies if i misunderstood) the question was about knight going to real battle. In that case said knight would certaily wield a one handed weapon and a shield, unless ofcourse in case of charge formation. Most knights would chose a good sword, however an axe, falchion (which is one hand weapon in reality), mace, or flailing morningstar are also considerable choices.

As far as two handed weapons goes, a two handed swords were used almost only in tournaments. The reason is simple: in battlefield you have to hold the formation. And a space needed to efectively swing a two handed sword is too big for formation. I said almost since there was one atempt to use two handed swords on the battlefield: certain german landsknecht used them however that tactic proved to be inefficient.

The polearms were very widely used alas not by knights who only wielded them during tournaments. And unless your opponent is also wielding a polearm
such weapon is inefective in one on one combat.

All styles using daggers are used for self-defence only and maybe for some tournaments, i'm not sure about that.

All knights had to learn to fight both on foot and mounted (and on the battlefield they preferred mounted).

To make things clear i'm talking about middle ages period.

Hum, how early in middle ages and which regions are we talking about?
The heavier armour gets the more polearms of specific types start being used by knights and the more double handed swords used in very specific ways start appearing in the hands of the knights (mainly as they can afford to use them without suffering from a lack of defensive capability and used properly those swords were magnificent to handle versus just about anything).

Don't forget that for Europe what is High Middle Ages is just a loose term to describe a general level of architecture, science, type of armour and weapon craftmanship.
This however did not happen at the same time across Europe, for instance full plate armours did not appear everywhere in the same time period nor in the same quality (or usefulness).
As an example my group did high middle ages with full plate, not the time period where we were in Belgium still talking about the French battles like the battle of the Gulden Spurs in 1302.
At that time partial plate was still the norm for what was then Flanders and we did not have many knights and mostly city levies.

[saimol]

Dervag

I wasn't saying that armor does not protect you. Sorry maybe i didn't made things clear. I was saying that all types of melee weapons are equally deadly against all types of armor. I mean that someone wielding a sword has about same chances to kill you as someone wielding an axe despite what type of armor you wear. Of course if you are unarmored this chance will be higher and if you wear full armor this chance will be lower. I am saying that there is no such thing as 'this weapon is more effective against unarmored opponent and this against armored one'.

On sources. It is very important not to take everything written as granted. Sadly in middle ages scribes adopted herodotian approach to writing history. Thats why we read about 'armies of ten thousands' when in reality leaders in question could only muster few hundreds. Same thing goes for fight descriptions - there are many things that were simply made up to sound more appealing. Also there is a nemesis of all reconstructors: Romanticism. There were many authors who wrote 'history books' that are subjective at best and presents made up things or authors opinion as facts at worst. Too many times i saw people who claims that they are doing things 'the way it were' and presents such book as a source. This is nemesis for both american and european reconstructors. The basic rule for sources is: if it is archaelogical finding then its gold, if it is written triple check it.
Now, i do not claim that ARMA are using wrong sources. As i said i did not know this group for my knowledge of american organisations is very limited. Also if they are working with high ranking historians then i believe they are I will try to search for some videos of their fights before giving my further opinion.


Deadmeat

I agree with most things you written. How ever i want to make clear some things about weapons.
To all my knowledge on the battlefield knights only used two handed swords while mounted. Fighter on foot would almost certainly chose a shield, the exception being the landsknecht.
I agree that even not mounted you can carry an one extra weapon to the fight however you would only use it in case you lost your main weapon. And of course you carry a dagger, i doubt you ever leave without it. Sorry i didn't thought it needs mentioning. Anything more however would interfere with your movement and even that one extra weapon is some more extra weight which you normally want to awoid.
Now polearms were indeed widely used especially in late middle ages. However very rarely knights themselves wielded them. After all thats what landsknecht and pikeman are for.
I also did not say that you carry your lance personally all the time, i said you use it for charging. However this is my fault of not making thngs clear.

Oh and i'm mostly talking about late middle ages, 14-15 centuries however i do have some knowledge on earlier centuries too.

I hope i put everything clearly this time.

[Spiryt]

Dervag
I mean that someone wielding a sword has about same chances to kill you as someone wielding an axe despite what type of armor you wear.


So you say that someone armed with let's say, type Xa sword would have the same chance of killing someone in full mail as someone armed with axe or flail :smallconfused:

I wonder what makes you say such thing with such certanity.

[saimol]

So you say that someone armed with let's say, type Xa sword would have the same chance of killing someone in full mail as someone armed with axe or flail :smallconfused:

I wonder what makes you say such thing with such certanity.

Yes. If your opponent is in full plate you basically hit him until he falls on the ground and then finish him of. Full plates gives you enough protection to reduce impact from direct blows by heavy headed weapons such as axes or maces and even from two handed weapons such as halberds or poleaxes. You have to wear off your opponent so he falls from taking too many hits or you have to stab him to joints. (which you can do with sword)

Oh you said mail. Then its even easier. You don't hit your opponent tu cut him, you hit him to break his bones under armor. And yes a sword on direct hit gives enough impact to break ribs.

[Spiryt]

Yes. If your opponent is in full plate you basically hit him until he falls on the ground and then finish him of. Full plates gives you enough protection to reduce impact from direct blows by heavy headed weapons such as axes or maces and even from two handed weapons such as halberds or poleaxes. You have to wear off your opponent so he falls from taking too many hits or you have to stab him to joints. (which you can do with sword)

Oh you said mail. Then its even easier. You don't hit your opponent tu cut him, you hit him to break his bones under armor. And yes a sword on direct hit gives enough impact to break ribs.

Yet its much, much easier with axe. Reenactors beat each other with swords and even more impact weapons and broken ribs are rare. So even while you probably can strike someone down with sword like that, axe would be better

[saimol]

Thats because reconstructors or reenactors, if they are fighting with full force, are wearing plate armor which, as i already said, greatly reduces the impact and therefore prevents broken ribs. Also believe it or not we don't want to kill each other so we try not to hit unprotected locations.

[Matthew]

On sources. It is very important not to take everything written as granted. Sadly in middle ages scribes adopted Herodotian approach to writing history. Thats why we read about 'armies of ten thousands' when in reality leaders in question could only muster few hundreds. Same thing goes for fight descriptions - there are many things that were simply made up to sound more appealing. Also there is a nemesis of all reconstructors: Romanticism. There were many authors who wrote 'history books' that are subjective at best and presents made up things or authors opinion as facts at worst. Too many times I saw people who claims that they are doing things 'the way it were' and presents such book as a source. This is nemesis for both american and European reconstructors. The basic rule for sources is: if it is archaeological finding then its gold, if it is written triple check it.

The thing is, it is not possible to correlate many written sources with archaeology, and even when it is the results tend to be sketchy and open to interpretation. A preponderance of differing written sources is usually reasonably good evidence. It is certainly not fair to apply the label Herodotian to "medieval scribes", as the quality differs; though numbers are often exaggerated it is all too easy to fall on the other end of the scale and suggest hundreds where there were indeed thousands. The best written evidence for this sort of thing are charters and other administrative documents, which preserve legal arrangements and the logistical challenges being met. Archaeology is all but hopeless as a resource in that regard.



To all my knowledge on the battlefield knights only used two handed swords while mounted. Fighter on foot would almost certainly chose a shield, the exception being the landsknecht.

Now polearms were indeed widely used especially in late middle ages. However very rarely knights themselves wielded them. After all that is what landsknecht and pikeman are for.

This is not the case with regards to English knights, who fought extensively on foot in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries and employed both "grete swords" (or long swords, at any rate not zwei handers) and pole axes on the battlefield. Of course, this is a time and space issue, but it is also linked to the increasing use of plate armour.

Where French knights and men at arms imitated the English practice of fighting on foot, it is hard to say what weapons were employed. The issue underlying that is the fact that battles were a relatively uncommon feature of medieval warfare, which was dominated by sieges and raids. The sort of combat that was involved in these two forms of warfare was quite different, one emphasising mobility and mounted combat and the other fortification and foot combat. Then there is the tournament where the aim is to capture other knights, which requires a different sort of tactic or strategy to those above.

In most pre industrial military organisations, you have a three tiered weapons system, with a long weapon (such as a lance, spear, or other pole arm, or alternatively a ranged weapon), a close combat weapon (such as a sword, axe, mace, hammer, etcetera) and a very close combat weapon (typically a dagger, but sometimes a short sword or the like, which may double as the close combat weapon for poorer soldiers). The poorest soldiers might only be able to afford the "long weapon" (one tier), whilst more fortunate might have a hand weapon to serve them in close and very close combat (two tiers). The prestige of the sword was such, though, that if a knight chose an axe or other hand weapon, he would still often carry a sword (four tiers). This was more practical whilst mounted, as noted.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Dervag

I wasn't saying that armor does not protect you. Sorry maybe i didn't made things clear. I was saying that all types of melee weapons are equally deadly against all types of armor. I mean that someone wielding a sword has about same chances to kill you as someone wielding an axe despite what type of armor you wear. Of course if you are unarmored this chance will be higher and if you wear full armor this chance will be lower. I am saying that there is no such thing as 'this weapon is more effective against unarmored opponent and this against armored one'.

On sources. It is very important not to take everything written as granted. Sadly in middle ages scribes adopted herodotian approach to writing history. Thats why we read about 'armies of ten thousands' when in reality leaders in question could only muster few hundreds. Same thing goes for fight descriptions - there are many things that were simply made up to sound more appealing. Also there is a nemesis of all reconstructors: Romanticism. There were many authors who wrote 'history books' that are subjective at best and presents made up things or authors opinion as facts at worst. Too many times i saw people who claims that they are doing things 'the way it were' and presents such book as a source. This is nemesis for both american and european reconstructors. The basic rule for sources is: if it is archaelogical finding then its gold, if it is written triple check it.
Now, i do not claim that ARMA are using wrong sources. As i said i did not know this group for my knowledge of american organisations is very limited. Also if they are working with high ranking historians then i believe they are I will try to search for some videos of their fights before giving my further opinion.


Deadmeat

I agree with most things you written. How ever i want to make clear some things about weapons.
To all my knowledge on the battlefield knights only used two handed swords while mounted. Fighter on foot would almost certainly chose a shield, the exception being the landsknecht.
I agree that even not mounted you can carry an one extra weapon to the fight however you would only use it in case you lost your main weapon. And of course you carry a dagger, i doubt you ever leave without it. Sorry i didn't thought it needs mentioning. Anything more however would interfere with your movement and even that one extra weapon is some more extra weight which you normally want to awoid.
Now polearms were indeed widely used especially in late middle ages. However very rarely knights themselves wielded them. After all thats what landsknecht and pikeman are for.
I also did not say that you carry your lance personally all the time, i said you use it for charging. However this is my fault of not making thngs clear.

Oh and i'm mostly talking about late middle ages, 14-15 centuries however i do have some knowledge on earlier centuries too.

I hope i put everything clearly this time.

Saimol, there is a big difference with armours, a full plate set or breast plate and mail armour will react very differently then other armours.

Simple physics should help there, certain armours caused the development of specific weapons (in the terms of swords there were swords which were far more rigid then most swords before which could pierce most mail type armours fairly easily and which were used far more as stabbing weapons) and a very, very simple example was the Katana.

An exceptional cutting sword, nobody will deny that but...Japanese warlords did use western types of breastplates as soon as they could get them...
Why?
If as you mentioned that weapons are not specific to the armour types why would they suddenly go for a new armour type?
Flanged maces as an example were more an advancement on mace weapons to make them effective against more then just the mail type armours which were far more easily bypassed by maces then swords.

Cutting mail or slicing it is a very difficult proposition, a mace however would bypass most protection offered by flexible armours. The advent of more rigid armours with curves to deflect blows made the maces a lot less effective so new types of mace-like weapons would start appearing at the same time that we would see armour evolve.

The katana, scimitar and such like slicing/cutting weapons were far more deadly to unarmoured opponents then to people wearing armour.
Therefore there is a difference between the two.
Certain types of ranged weapons would also fare better against certain armour types so there is a diffierence there too.
Certain polearms were also less effective against softer/flexible armours then against harder/rigid armours as they would spread impact over an area that was the same surface but not very deeply so. A person in plate armour would end up with rends or dents in his armour and a person in typical mail would end up with serious bruises but otherwise would still have his armour for follow-up attacks.

Armour and weapon type/use does both play a role.

As for the two-handed swords...remember warswords are used two-handed and used halfsword style and this was done by knights and by specially trained men at arms.
Saying that the Dopple Solders were ineffective is a gross oversimplification.
Yes, against the Poles (and to a lesser degree some of the other military forces of Eastern Europe) they did not do well but you do know why.

Cavalry from there tended to be less heavily armoured and faster on their feet with access to ranged weapons in many cases.
Parthian shot anybody?
It was still a part of the mind set for a long time given the success of the tactic so huge blocks of pikes and such were less successful.
Without this there was no need for line-breakers which would come into play against other Western armies where pike blocks could sometimes stop attacks dead in their tracks.
People claim it is a legend but there is enough written material to show that such people did exist and did get used. (Payroll texts are quite obvious a clear indication of factual matters)

These line-breakers disappeared when gunpowder weapons became more effective so they existed for a short period in history.

As for knights on foot...no, they would not go with shields on foot on the western side in all occasions during those time periods you gave.
For protection against archery pavises would be used far more often then shields by the late 15th century or early 16th and smaller items like bucklers would be used in combat or double handed weapons of some kind in the idea that the improved armour would keep you safe when you closed with the enemy where you would be safe from ranged attacks and that extra killing power would be more important.

Pollaxes did exist, were used and appear in many manuscripts with both knights and commoners.
Actually...a lot of knights would use those as skill, strength and size were often needed to bring them to best use while a lot of other polearms did not require such a high level of professionalism.

Keep in mind that the terrain you are thinking of is dramatically different then the terrain in say west Germany or Flanders, the Low Lands...
A lot of streams (small but still muddy on the edges), rolling hills, with fairly short open distances (leading to for instance the bundling up of the French in Agincourt, they were funneled due to bad leadership and tactics on their side in a small, muddy space against a solid defensive position. Battle of the Gulden Spurs, 1302, a smallish field with several streams and surrounded by either woods, hills or a river and a city...) where battle would quite often involve a melee in which mounted knights after the initial charge would be trapped in close quarters.
If you are going to be battling in close quarters or sieges (an awfull lot of sieges in Flanders...stubborn independent cities rebelling almost yearly against whichever ruler happens to be owning the the ground at the time...) fighting on foot comes more often to knights and a weapon that allows you to keep space versus lightly armoured and rather lowly trained becomes more interesting.
That way wielding a two-handed weapon of some sort (mostly a sword since you can halfsword it and fight on in close quarters or a weapon that would smash people down like some sort of pollaxe) becomes a lot more attractive.

There is a massive difference between the types of battles in Western Europe compared to Eastern Europe.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Yes. If your opponent is in full plate you basically hit him until he falls on the ground and then finish him of. Full plates gives you enough protection to reduce impact from direct blows by heavy headed weapons such as axes or maces and even from two handed weapons such as halberds or poleaxes. You have to wear off your opponent so he falls from taking too many hits or you have to stab him to joints. (which you can do with sword)

Oh you said mail. Then its even easier. You don't hit your opponent tu cut him, you hit him to break his bones under armor. And yes a sword on direct hit gives enough impact to break ribs.

Actually...have you ever tried to break ribs on a pork carcass with mail and standard padding over the top?
With a sword breaking anything requires incredibly hefty swings, leaving you completely open to counters.
Without the padding you might be correct but with padding it is not as easy as you say.
Breaking an arm is already difficult unless you keep your army stiff but not easily done on an arm that is swinging and moving freely.

As for the hit the guy in full plate until he falls over...
That is a tactic that takes a lot of effort and time but heavy headed weapons would do more then a standard sword swing and they would do more then slowly knock you over.
The small (and large in cases) dents will cause injuries even if you do not go through the armour and do more then slow the target down.

Certain heavy headed weapons would do far more then just slowly wear the target down.
Flanged maces would cause dents and rends through plate on a decent hit, pollaxes (the 5 to 6 feet long ones including the bladehead) would do serious damage on a decent hit to the armour and by extension to the person inside the armour.
Go for the collarbone (and yes knights would be trained to do so) and a good hit will cripple your opponent.
I have had personal experience and we were trained to pull impacts on the last second, yet I would still walk away with serious bruising and the odd cracked/bruised bone from impact weapons.

With swords however I rarely if ever had more then light bruises.

I would advise you to do some cutting/impact tests on stuffed carcass with the armour over the top so you can see the difference between impacts from different weapons.
And don't forget this is against a stationary target which is not fighting back so it would be easier to place blows.

Swords are a lot more versatile, everyone here will agree to that, but they are not the best weapon for all circumstances and especially against heavier mail and padding or plate and padding armours.
Luckily enough for knights the majority of opponents on a battlefield would normally be wearing far less armour.

[Raum]

I wasn't saying that armor does not protect you. Sorry maybe i didn't made things clear. I was saying that all types of melee weapons are equally deadly against all types of armor. I suspect you need to limit your definition of 'all types of melee weapons' and / or redefine 'equally deadly against all types of armor'. If the literal meaning of your statement is your intent, it's demonstrably untrue. For obvious and extreme examples compare the armor penetration of a zwiehander to an escrima stick.


I mean that someone wielding a sword has about same chances to kill you as someone wielding an axe despite what type of armor you wear. Of course if you are unarmored this chance will be higher and if you wear full armor this chance will be lower. If you're saying "the wielder is dangerous, not the weapon" I agree with you.


I am saying that there is no such thing as 'this weapon is more effective against unarmored opponent and this against armored one'.If this is true, what drove weapon and armor development over time? Realistically, it was an arms race - weapon penetration had to improve as armor improved - and vice versa. Still is an arms race for that matter.

I do wonder how much of this disagreement may be due to differences in language. As far as I can tell, everyone is in general agreement on the number of weapons actually carried into combat. Not sure the agreement is there for what constitutes 'Master' status but that may well be differences in definition of 'Master'.

[Dervag]

Dervag

I wasn't saying that armor does not protect you. Sorry maybe i didn't made things clear. I was saying that all types of melee weapons are equally deadly against all types of armor.That also seems unlikely. After all, many new weapons were introduced in the late Middle Ages specifically to deal with plate armor. And some weapons are going to be damned near useless against armor unless the user is extremely lucky.

Fighting styles that make a sword or axe at least somewhat effective against armor exist, but that doesn't mean that a sword is as good as a bec de corbin is as good as a crossbow is as good as a club when fighting an armored opponent.
________


Now, i do not claim that ARMA are using wrong sources. As i said i did not know this group for my knowledge of american organisations is very limited. Also if they are working with high ranking historians then i believe they are I will try to search for some videos of their fights before giving my further opinion.They're farther from most of the European historical community, but they do work fairly hard to use intelligent, well-supported sources for things like weapons and fighting styles. Talk to the people on here for more information.

[Hurlbut]

Sorry i may have misinterpreted what you said. Well of course, a crossbow is ranged weapon, lance is used while mounted and a sword is close melee weapon. As for the axe i didn't quite get that. Did he picked up the axe after losing his sword? Or did he wielded axe in diferent battle in the same text? Anyway you are talking about important person. We cant even rule out the posibility that most details in the text were made up by whoever were writing it to make the king look more awesome. (I'm not saying that is was made up, i'm saying that such things happened quite often) Also as the saying goes: an exception only proves the rule right :smallsmile:The sword was traditionally a sidearm much like the revoler or automatic pistol was traditionally a soldier's sidearm. So you usually have the sword as a backup, letting you using other weapons for any situation and draw the sword when the dices are thrown down.

[13_CBS]

A random question...

Let's say that, in a hypothetical battle, there are a pack of armored horsemen to eliminate. I have 13th century AD Western European technology available to my men, and for some miraculous reason they're all pretty uniformly equipped--in short, my army's more like something straight out of the Total War series than a real, historically accurate army.

If I had to fight the armored horsemen with only infantry, what sort of equipment should I give them to maximize casualties on the cavalry?

[Spiryt]

Some longest spear available, other solid polearms, men must be organised and fluent in fighting side by side, creating the hedge of steel, find some place when you cannot be flanked, attacked from bad direction.

This had been done at Striling in 13th century to not search long. And few other battles of later medieval suggest that cohesive, firm lines of footmen could fight very well against cavalary. Especially when the latter were fighting in brainsless, uncoordinated way.

And that's what can be generally said without some more data about said horsemen, said infantry

[13_CBS]

Some longest spear available, other solid polearms, men must be organised and fluent in fighting side by side, creating the hedge of steel, find some place when you cannot be flanked, attacked from bad direction.


Hmm...I'm under the impression, though, that long spear-like weapons were handy for warding off cavalry charges, rather than being an effective way of outright killing them.

As for the armored horsemen...assume armor no heavier than 13th century maille and steel helmets.

[Matthew]

Hmm...I'm under the impression, though, that long spear-like weapons were handy for warding off cavalry charges, rather than being an effective way of outright killing them.

As for the armored horsemen...assume armor no heavier than 13th century maille and steel helmets.

The reason spears ward off cavalry is because the cavalry are generally not silly enough to charge a wall of spears unsupported. Assuming that they are misguided enough to charge into such a formation (and there are reports of this happening) a combination of halberds and spears will probably be best in melee. In all likelihood, though, a commander faced with such troops would not squander his cavalry in that manner. He may even dismount them and go in on foot. Preferably, though, he would have his cavalry attack with missile weapons until the formation breaks up and then ride it down (this was the typical method of Byzantine mounted warfare).

[paddyfool]

A random question...

Let's say that, in a hypothetical battle, there are a pack of armored horsemen to eliminate. I have 13th century AD Western European technology available to my men, and for some miraculous reason they're all pretty uniformly equipped--in short, my army's more like something straight out of the Total War series than a real, historically accurate army.

If I had to fight the armored horsemen with only infantry, what sort of equipment should I give them to maximize casualties on the cavalry?

Rain, muddy ground, bows, axes, sharp stakes to hammer into the ground as a simple mobile fortification, and nothing more than very light armour. Shoot them as they sink and then finish them off with axes, the Agincourt way. That is, assuming they're silly enough to be wearing heavy armour in such conditions.

[Dervag]

Rain, muddy ground, bows, axes, sharp stakes to hammer into the ground as a simple mobile fortification, and nothing more than very light armour. Shoot them as they sink and then finish them off with axes, the Agincourt way. That is, assuming they're silly enough to be wearing heavy armour in such conditions.And silly enough to attack you across a big muddy field.

I'm going to agree that pikes or halberds are probably your best choice if you can force or trick the enemy into giving battle in the first place. Since your infantry are necessarily less mobile than his cavalry, that's going to be the real trick. So your most important single tactic is (I'd say) to create a situation where the cavalry rashly attack you because they've underestimated the strength of your defensive polearm hedge.

[Mike_G]

I think the best answer is combined arms: pike/halberds and bows or crossbows. The missile weapons actually inflict casualties and attempt to provoke the cavalry into an ill advised charge, the pikes protect your footmen from that charge.

Decent training is necessary to get troops to move in formation, but still quicker and cheaper than training and equipping heavy cavalry.

This was traditionally the way to counter cavalry up through the 19th century, if you substitute musket and bayonet for pike and bow. It worked for the Swiss in the middle ages, and kept Ney's Cuirassiers from breaking any squares at Waterloo.

Without cavalry of your own, you can't really force contact. You have to occupy some terrain that he wants and try to get him to attack you.

[Lapak]

Without cavalry of your own, you can't really force contact. You have to occupy some terrain that he wants and try to get him to attack you.And with this in mind, some of the better weapons to equip your troops with for this conflict would be engineering tools. Get some trenches, some earthworks, some nice spiky barricades in place.

[Dervag]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but how would you calculate damage for car crashes/impacts. I was thinking about running a Dnd Fantasy/modern campaign and I was wondering how much damage a car could do if rammed into a building or creature. Also what sort of damage a character on the inside of the vehicle would take. D20 modern has stats for vehicles but nothing about the damage they could do.

Ideally it would take into account speed as well as the type of vehicle. A van going 90mph will do a lot more damage than a compact going 30.This is indeed the wrong place to discuss rules for a game in terms of things like die rolls. I'd be happy to make suggestions, but I recommend you start your own thread on this forum.

[Dewey]

I have a question. I am interested in getting a replica ax, can anyone recommend a sight that isn't too pricey but has decent-quality axes? I'm interested primarily in one-handed Norse types, if that makes a difference.

[Crow]

Albion is supposed to be making a line of axes in the near-future I hear. I need one to go with my Hersir. =)

[Fortinbras]

Is there such thing as bullet proof armor for the face, if not why not.

[Norsesmithy]

You can get face masks in up to level IIIA protection (see my body armor post a couple pages back), but most people don't use them, because they are uncomfortable, don't protect you from rifles, limit your vision (making you easier to kill), and your face is a pretty small target for most situations.

It is generally considered a good trade off to leave your face uncovered.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/security2020_2061_33093690 (http://www.securityprousa.com/tabaleiiima.html)

[Matthew]

I have a question. I am interested in getting a replica ax, can anyone recommend a sight that isn't too pricey but has decent-quality axes? I'm interested primarily in one-handed Norse types, if that makes a difference.

A few axe reviews can be found at My Armoury (http://www.myarmoury.com/reviews.html), but no one handed Norse axes from what I can see. Lutel (http://www.lutel.eu/?p=productsList&iCategory=26&page=1) do axe replicas, but mainly late period. Arms & Armour (http://www.armor.com/polearms.html) do a few axes, and one supposedly Nordland Axe (http://www.armor.com/pole213.html), but I do not know much about them. Before they folded, Ancient Edge did a line of nice looking axes. I think they were middle men distributors, so the axes might be available elsewhere:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Axes/Axes.jpg http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Axes/BeardedThrowingAxe.jpg http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Axes/MammenAxe.jpg http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Axes/ShortBeardedAxe.jpg http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Axes/ShortVikingAxe.jpg http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i226/Plle200/Arms%20and%20Armour/Axes/ThrowingAxe.jpg

[Dewey]

I'm thinking about purchasing an axe from CAS Iberia, and I would like to know if anyone here has bought replicas from them, and what they thought of the workmanship, etc. Thanks!

[Matthew]

I'm thinking about purchasing an axe from CAS Iberia, and I would like to know if anyone here has bought replicas from them, and what they thought of the workmanship, etc. Thanks!

Assuming that this is the site you are talking about: CAS Iberia (http://www.casiberia.com/index.asp), they look to be the ones I pictured on the previous page. They stock a lot of Tinker stuff there, and what else they stock looks fairly reasonable to me. Probably not high quality reproductions, but effective enough. No real experience of them, though, sorry.

[Dewey]

That was what I meant, and thanks for your input.

[Adlan]

Gransfors Bruks (http://www.gransfors.com/htm_eng/index.html) make phenomenally good axes, if you are still looking, and want something more than for fun. Might be a bit pricy, but by jove, they are worth it.


I missed an archery question :(. My fault for being busy. Answers for it were pretty much what I'd have said though. It is very hard to tell though, as no one lives the life of a medieval archer any more. Historical accounts give accuracies I find hard to belive.

[Shademan]

Long have I thought that the range increment of daggers, throwing axes and javelins are bogus.
How long can a experienced throw (martial weapon proff. anyone?) throw these weapon accurately in the real world?

Javelin
dagger
throwing axe
hammer, light

[Norsesmithy]

How accurate are you looking for? Hit a pie tin every time accurate? Or hit a body half the time accurate?

The standard range for an axe throwing competition is 20 feet, and at 20 feet, they expect to stick every time in a target a bunch smaller than a person.

[Lapak]

How accurate are you looking for? Hit a pie tin every time accurate? Or hit a body half the time accurate?

The standard range for an axe throwing competition is 20 feet, and at 20 feet, they expect to stick every time in a target a bunch smaller than a person.Of course, that's a non-evading stationary target. I think the range increment on most thrown weapons is actually pretty reasonable, all things considered.

[Stephen_E]

Can someone tell me the weight of a standard reasonably highpowered rifle bullet (say .303?). Not the prefire cartridge but the actual bullet that leaves the barrel.

I'm interested because I came across a mention that a high powered rifle bullet has sufficient kinetic energy to significantly move a human body IF most of the energy was transferred to the human target as kinetic energy. Off course very little of the kinetic energy is transfered from a bullet to it's target as KE, epecially when we're talking about a human body, but I was interested in doing the maths to check the claim.
KE = 1/2M x V(sq) (for slow objects such as bullets)
Thus 1/2 bullet wgt (kgs) x bullet velocity (sq) = 1/2 90kg x human bodies velocity (sq).

Thanks
Stephen E

[Dervag]

Can someone tell me the weight of a standard reasonably highpowered rifle bullet (say .303?). Not the prefire cartridge but the actual bullet that leaves the barrel.

I'm interested because I came across a mention that a high powered rifle bullet has sufficient kinetic energy to significantly move a human body IF most of the energy was transferred to the human target as kinetic energy. Off course very little of the kinetic energy is transfered from a bullet to it's target as KE, epecially when we're talking about a human body, but I was interested in doing the maths to check the claim.If Wikipedia is to be trusted here, kinetic energy is consistently around 3300 J, with a mass of about eleven grams.

If you do the naive calculation and say "how fast would a human being be moving after picking up 3300 joules from a collision," the answer is "about six meters per second,"* which is quite significant and probably fast enough to send someone flying a few meters.

*Assuming a 100 kg weight.

But that ignores conservation of momentum, which also has to be followed in a collision. A rifle bullet doesn't have enough momentum to do any such thing, because it masses around ten grams and is traveling at a bit under a thousand meters per second. If we assume an inelastic collision (total transfer of kinetic energy, no rebound), conservation of momentum means that the target winds up moving at around 0.01 m/s*.

*See previous footnote.

The rest of the energy goes into deformation of the target, which is why rifle bullets can kill you so easily.
__________

This phenomenon of high-velocity objects having immense kinetic energy but very little momentum gets more extreme at higher speeds. In the high-speed limit of ultrarelativistic particle beams, for instance... the LHC beam has about as much kinetic energy as a charging freight train, and about as much momentum as a charging gerbil.

[Stephen_E]

Thanks Dervag.

I'm reminded of a debate sometime back re: Infantry Rail guns and whether they'd be any good due to increased recoil from higher velocities. Something that didn't occur to me at the time was that recoil is based on momentum while the damage is based on the KE of the projectile. Thus doubling the velocity of your projectile only doubles the recoil while quadrupling the KE of the projectile.

Stephen E

[valadil]

I love that this thread exists :)

I'm assuming that, like any other weapon, there is a basic method of not hurting yourself with it, and that this method is explained at the very early stages of training (like it's the first thing you tell your 4 year old when you let him hold granddad's heirloom parrot-hunting blowgun). What I'm not clear on is how blowgunners are trained to prevent dart inhalation. I have two guesses:

...

Does anyone know enough about blowguns to know which method is used? Or if it's something altogether different I never thought of?


Sorry for responding to such an old post. I'm not sure if post necromancy is frowned upon when in the context of a live thread.

Anyway I have some minimal training with a blowgun. Not inhaling the dart was the first thing we were taught. It's pretty simple. You hold the blowgun in both hands. Then you inhale. Then you put the blowgun to your mouth. Always do it in that order and you're all set. We were taught no other part of the technique until we'd shot (or is it blown?) for a few hours and that lesson had sunk in.

[Dervag]

Thanks Dervag.

I'm reminded of a debate sometime back re: Infantry Rail guns and whether they'd be any good due to increased recoil from higher velocities. Something that didn't occur to me at the time was that recoil is based on momentum while the damage is based on the KE of the projectile. Thus doubling the velocity of your projectile only doubles the recoil while quadrupling the KE of the projectile.

Stephen ETrue, but against most targets that just means (more) overpenetration, unless you go far out of your way to create specialized expanding/mushrooming/fragmenting bullets.

[Norsesmithy]

Of course, that's a non-evading stationary target. I think the range increment on most thrown weapons is actually pretty reasonable, all things considered.

This is touching on a rule debate, but remember, a person completely unable to move is only going to be hit on a 5 or better by a proficient user who hasn't got a to hit bonus in 3.5.


Thanks Dervag.

I'm reminded of a debate sometime back re: Infantry Rail guns and whether they'd be any good due to increased recoil from higher velocities. Something that didn't occur to me at the time was that recoil is based on momentum while the damage is based on the KE of the projectile. Thus doubling the velocity of your projectile only doubles the recoil while quadrupling the KE of the projectile.

Stephen E
To be a total pedant, damage is not based on KE or momentum. It is based on flesh destroyed. Having lots of KE or momentum does help, but bullet deformation and bullet diameter are important factors. A prime example of this is the performance of 7.62x39 compared to the performance of 5.56x45. The 7.62 round has a significant advantage in both momentum and energy, but the 5.56 destroys more tissue at all ranges because 5.56 fragments at short ranges and tumbles sooner when it hasn't got the energy needed to fragment.

But more important than that is putting your bullets where the tissue you damage is going to be important tissue.

[Stephen_E]

To be a total pedant, damage is not based on KE or momentum. It is based on flesh destroyed. Having lots of KE or momentum does help, but bullet deformation and bullet diameter are important factors. A prime example of this is the performance of 7.62x39 compared to the performance of 5.56x45. The 7.62 round has a significant advantage in both momentum and energy, but the 5.56 destroys more tissue at all ranges because 5.56 fragments at short ranges and tumbles sooner when it hasn't got the energy needed to fragment.

But more important than that is putting your bullets where the tissue you damage is going to be important tissue.

IIRC from a FBI document on the subject (it may have been linked from here in a previous discussion) penetration is what kills, sort of:smallwink:. Greater KE translates to greater penetration (up to the point it goes right through). With body armour you're back to lighter rounds and lower KE failing to penetrate. It's also important to note that many/most people will be rendered incapable of action, or at the least severely handicapped, by any significant penetration, even non-mortal penetration. Exactly why it happens is open to debate but it does seem to be linked to trauma done to the persons flesh, which is again a function of penetration, and thus strongly linked to KE.

Stephen E

[Norsesmithy]

Penetration is great, but .22 LR will penetrate further than 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP.

Penetration is one dimension.

Tissue destruction is 3D.

Edit: That is not to say that you don't want penetration, ideally you want the bullet to go through (that is to exit) the target, so you can maximise that dimension of the wound cavity, and provide more area for bleed out, but you don't want to do that at the detriment of the diameter of your wound cavity.

[hamishspence]

yes- if the round is small calibre, high hardness, high velocity, it will go straight through, but its stopping power won't be as high.

Worse yet, high speed high hardness rounds probably go through walls as well, making them highly unsuitable in a firefight for people who have to worry about collateral damage- due to danger to passers-by.

[Spiryt]

Actually, I was under impression that heavier bullet with more momentum will penetrate much better than smaller one, even if smaller one have slight advantage in overal kinetic energy. :smallconfused:

Moreover, as some people are implying (http://www.tradgang.com/ashby/Momentum%20Kinetic%20Energy%20and%20Arrow%20Penetr ation.htm) higher velocity also means more resistance of target, so it's not always good.

And small relatively small bullet like 5.56 from M 16 is actually very deadly beacuse of it's lack of momentum and v. high velocity - human body stops it's so violenty, that most of energy is given to target - I've read some Vietnam memories stating that often after 15 cm of penetration they were simply falling apart beacuse of their big velocity (causing immense damage, of course) - and this effect naturally wasn't occuring after loosing velocity after 100 meters.

So after loosing velocity, and in result energy and momentum, it was actually penetrating better.

Of course, sheer bigger calibur of 0.45 may often casue greater damage, but it seems that it will aslo often cause very smooth (http://www.firearmstactical.com/images/Wound%20Profiles/45ACP%20230gr%20FMJ.jpg) (even though it isn't the best word to describe the bullet wound:smallyuk:) and straight passing completely trough.

And though.22 LR doesn't really have that much higher velocity than some 0.45, it's momentum is very low, and it's sectional density is also worse - two times smaller diameter - but usualy around four times smaller mass...

In result I can't see why it should penetrate further.


Since some of you seem to be good about bullets, explain please? :smallsmile:

[Norsesmithy]

Momentum is (probably) an important factor in penetration, especially penetration of hard but brittle things (like bone) and liquids, but I have yet to see a mathematical model that accurately predicts penetration across more than one or two variables. And the differences between one round and another are generally at least three variables, before you take the target medium and bullet composition into effect.

The only way is to test, and test some more.

And actually, .22 generally has a higher muzzle velocity than .45. A standard load of .45 ball ammo is generally going to go 830 FPS, and standard .22 out of a handgun should be closer to 1100 or so, similar velocities to 9x19.

As far as 5.56 goes, even thought they tend to blow apart after yawing in flesh, at short range, the fragments still penetrate quite far. Generally at least some exit.

Also "Stopping Power" doesn't really exist. At least 75% of a gunshot wound's instant effect is psychological, and the rest has more to do with where than what.

Only two things drop a guy faster than 30 seconds after impact. Him thinking he is dead, and CNS disruption.

Even if you blow away his heart, if he doesn't think he is dead, he has at least 30 seconds of fight left, sometimes up to 90 seconds, depending on physical conditioning.

Edit: Any FMJ pistol round is going to make as icepick like permanent cavity (the cavity that kills) Faster rounds may have a larger temporary cavity, but that is just stretch in the flesh, and it doesn't kill.

This is why we invented hollowpoints.

[Userrname]

Don't know if this has been discussed yet or not? Would there be a reason to bother with counting armor if a modern weapon was used? If a soldier shot at a typical level 5 fighter with an AK-47 could I just assume the plate mail (and the fighter) is going to have holes in it?

[Norsesmithy]

Antique armor is going to be penetrated.

Modern armor can stop that kind of threat.

Plates can be either aggregated Boron Carbide (mistakenly called Ceramic, they aren't) or exotic alloy steels, the Steel plates are heavier, but less bulky, the Boron Carbide plates are lighter, but much thicker.

Generally, even the exotic alloy steel plates are going to have to be too heavy to be adapted to a suit of full plate, and still be within reasonable weight limits, while the Boron plates are going to be so thick that joints would be impossible.

This (http://dsgarms.com/index.cfm/product/1676_137/titanium-alloy-multi-hit-ak-47-hard-armor-plate-in-conjunction---10x12.cfm) 10x12 titanium alloy steel plate will protect you from pretty much any number of AK style hits, assuming they land on the plate.

It is 1/4 inch thick, and weighs just over 6 lbs.

How you handle made up materials is up to you.

[Deadmeat.GW]

There are new armours in the making that kinda look like plate or scale mail which can stop fairly hefty rifle rounds, the problem is not just weight but also maintenance and cost.

When the armour costs a quarter of a million dollars and needs daily maintenance to keep functioning as expected...

The armies that have not unlimited budgets are going to think twice before diving in there.

I am trying to get a picture, it kinda looks like the Dragonscale full-body armour they were talking about a while back.
It looks impressive as a concept (no field testing so...) and it supposedly is even better then the dragonscale stuff but at the price tag mentioned...

[Norsesmithy]

I am not sure which armor you might be talking about, but if it was that heavier and more complete Dragon Skin style armor made by Pinnacle, it will never see the light of day.

Pinnacle has gone out of business, because of the failure to sell Dragon Skin.

A shame, because, though it needs lots of refinement, the idea was a neat one.

Dragon Skin never received a major contract because although it was very effective at stoping multiple hits, it covered less of the body than Interceptor, and it failed both the high temperature testing and the solvency testing when the army was evaluating it.

It is a bad thing when the glued together plates of your body armor fall apart when you get splashed with diesel.

[Fortinbras]

Can anyone give me a breakdown of what exactly went wrong for the US forces in Mogadishu?

[Thiel]

yes and the boat in question is a med sized gallion

Based on my own experience with square rigged ships (Five months on Georg Stage (http://www.detmaritimedanmark.dk/public/billeder/EMUC/NEWS/GS-lav%20opl%F8sninglille.jpg)) I'd say you'll need at least 13 men (1 mate, 1 helmsman, 1 lookout and 10 men to work the sails) per watch to run the ship shorthanded. Any less and you won't be able to run the ship effectively. (It takes six men just to close haul the Fore Course Tack)

You'll need at least two watches, giving you a crew of 26 which, if I remeber correctly, isn't all that far from what merchantmen carried at the time.

Now, since you're going to be fighting on a regular basis, you can probably double, tripple or even quadruple that. (Compare the 320-420 men of a Royal Navy Fourth- Rate to the 100-150 men of a contemporary East Indiaman)

[Mike_G]

Can anyone give me a breakdown of what exactly went wrong for the US forces in Mogadishu?


Read Blackhawk Down.

Or, you could read the USMC Small Wars Manual and see all the stuff we should have done but didn't.

Alternately, the short answer is that after the initial deployment of US troops, we turned over control to UN forces, some of whom did ok, and some of whom did very badly, allowing some warlords to consolidate power.

The second US intervention, to cover the UN withdrawal and the ill conceived hunt for Aidid, was crippled by several factors.

Keeping US troops mostly in a base area, allowing the warlords free reign of the city doomed the effort. Whoever controls the ground controls the country. They wind up being the defacto government to whom the people look. We've been good at making this mistake since perfecting the technique in Vietnam.

Collateral damage when attacking specific targets. Screaming overhead in a gunship, your aim can be a bit imprecise. When you don't have good ground assets to guide the strike, and deal with the results, you let the enemy frame the strike as a brutal imperialist aggression. You can't win a limited war without the support of the populace.

The raid to capture Aidid's officers that is portrayed in Blackhawk Down was made with poor intel about open routes for vehicles, barricades, etc, it was made in the afternoon, at a time of day when the enemy was at their most alert, hopped up on the Khat that they chronically used. Initally a stimulant, users tended to crash hours later, so a strike after dark would have found them lethargic. Moving in daylight also threw away our advantages of superior night vision.

We didn't realize that they had trained to use RPGs to fire at helicopters. This is a tough shot, and wasn't really considered a threat. The Arghans had, however, gotten good at this when fighting the Russians, and some Afghan fighters were in Somalia training their fellow Muslims how to pull this off. It was a shock to US commanders that they managed to down two helicopters that day.

These are a few of many things that went very wrong.

[Norsesmithy]

Other things that cost lives on that famous day include a lack of US controlled armor, a lack of air support, and slow response times on the part of the UN controlled troops.

But while an armored column that could have fought through the city to relieve the guys at the crash sites or gunships to clear out the enemy around the crash sites, or a faster response by the Pakistani armored column may have saved lives, it is important to remember that ultimately, it was the major malfunctions Mike listed that cost us the action.

Had we controlled the streets from the beginning, or been more precise with our gunships, or waited until 3 in the morning to raid, we may have WON, and ultimately that is the failure to achieve objectives that makes an operation a failure.

[Fortinbras]

Read Blackhawk Down.

Or, you could read the USMC Small Wars Manual and see all the stuff we should have done but didn't.

Alternately, the short answer is that after the initial deployment of US troops, we turned over control to UN forces, some of whom did ok, and some of whom did very badly, allowing some warlords to consolidate power.

The second US intervention, to cover the UN withdrawal and the ill conceived hunt for Aidid, was crippled by several factors.

Keeping US troops mostly in a base area, allowing the warlords free reign of the city doomed the effort. Whoever controls the ground controls the country. They wind up being the defacto government to whom the people look. We've been good at making this mistake since perfecting the technique in Vietnam.

Collateral damage when attacking specific targets. Screaming overhead in a gunship, your aim can be a bit imprecise. When you don't have good ground assets to guide the strike, and deal with the results, you let the enemy frame the strike as a brutal imperialist aggression. You can't win a limited war without the support of the populace.

The raid to capture Aidid's officers that is portrayed in Blackhawk Down was made with poor intel about open routes for vehicles, barricades, etc, it was made in the afternoon, at a time of day when the enemy was at their most alert, hopped up on the Khat that they chronically used. Initally a stimulant, users tended to crash hours later, so a strike after dark would have found them lethargic. Moving in daylight also threw away our advantages of superior night vision.

We didn't realize that they had trained to use RPGs to fire at helicopters. This is a tough shot, and wasn't really considered a threat. The Arghans had, however, gotten good at this when fighting the Russians, and some Afghan fighters were in Somalia training their fellow Muslims how to pull this off. It was a shock to US commanders that they managed to down two helicopters that day.

These are a few of many things that went very wrong.

I did read Blackhawk Down but I didn't understand a lot of it. This may sound a little ignorant but why couldn't helicopters have been used to bring out the important prisoners?

[Storm Bringer]

I did read Blackhawk Down but I didn't understand a lot of it. This may sound a little ignorant but why couldn't helicopters have been used to bring out the important prisoners?

they couldn't land the helis.

the troops were deployed by fast rope (something like rappelling) off the side of the choppers on to the streets, which were hovering above rooftop level. However, there were no open spaces near the target large enough that a chopper could get down to ground level without damaging it's rotor blades, so they had to extract via Humvee. Also, IIRC, their were several dozen captives, more than could be shoved into a heli, meaning that even if a landing site was nearby, they'd have to fight their way to it, hold it for long enough for several helicopters to land and be loaded, then continue to hold until they can get those helis back again to carry the rangers out, executing a withdrawl under fire in the process.

Plus a stationary chopper sat on the ground is very, very vulnerable. In the air they can move fast and high, and avoid the worst of the ground fire (RPG notwithstanding), but sat on a pavement they would have been shot to pieces by AK fire.

[Mike_G]

I did read Blackhawk Down but I didn't understand a lot of it. This may sound a little ignorant but why couldn't helicopters have been used to bring out the important prisoners?

What Strombringer said.

Landing a helicopter is a tricky thing, especially in a city, given the confines of streets, the presence of things like power lines, and so on.

Working on the ambulance, when we have to fly someone out from the field to a distant hospital, we can close a chunk of interstate, or we put them in the truck and drive to designated LZ, generally a school parking lot or football field. And we use a small, one patient helicopter, not a monster like a Blackhawk. A small chopper could maybe be landed on a flat roof, but not a Blackhawk.

Plus, as he says, putting a big stationery, poorly armored target on the ground in an enemy held area would be like driving a Rose Bowl float across a rifle range and hoping it didn't get hit. Even keeping to the sky, we lost two of them.

Now, if we'd has a few Bradleys in place of Humvees, they could have run the gauntlet of fire and protected the troops inside better.

[vrellum]

Only two things drop a guy faster than 30 seconds after impact. Him thinking he is dead, and CNS disruption.


.

Assuming that human physiology is similar to a whitetailed deer's, I don't believe this to be quite right. I don't think deer are capable of thinking they are dead and I have shot several in the chest cavity that have dropped immediately with very minimal movement after falling. Three were shot with a 270 at very close to close range (approx. 10 ft, 20 yards, and 40 yards), and one with a 30-30 at approximately 125 yards.

For the closest one, the bullet fragmented when it hit a rib failed to penetrate past the body cavity on the opposite side. The shrapnel from the bullet tore the lungs to pieces, with the biggest piece about the size of my fist. The deer dropped immediately and twitched its rear foot weakly about two times. The other deer moved sligtly more, though their movements lacked speed and strength.

The other two also suffered considerable damage to the lungs, though none were hit in the heart. One had numerous broken ribs because the deer was facing me when I shot her. The other one had a shattered shoulder/humerus.

The deer shot with the 30-30 also had a shattered shoulder.


Then again, there are deer that are hit quite well and run some distance before falling. It is hard to predict.

Perhaps you meant guaranteed?

[Adlan]

What will have dropped your deer then is shock. Death is strange, something with no heart and loosing blood like it was going out of style may take longer to 'die' than something with a small hole in each lung.

[lsfreak]

While I am no expert, I propose the following:
Adrenaline does amazing things to the human body and mind.

[Stephen_E]

Assuming that human physiology is similar to a whitetailed deer's, I don't believe this to be quite right. I don't think deer are capable of thinking they are dead and I have shot several in the chest cavity that have dropped immediately with very minimal movement after falling. Three were shot with a 270 at very close to close range (approx. 10 ft, 20 yards, and 40 yards), and one with a 30-30 at approximately 125 yards.



I'd go woth the "they think they're dead" as pretty good description of what happens. And yes, deer can think they dead. Indeed most reasonably high level animals (which includes deer) have shown the ability to damn near will themselves to death under the right circumstances.

But in short what we're talking about is the literal fact that even the injuries you describe for your deer don't have a technical basis for causing the deer to drop instantly. Having your lungs shredded is not technically a reason for death. Not getting oxygen to the brain will eventually kill you, which losing your lungs will do indirectly. Something about been shot, be it a human or another animal, often seems to cause a circuit breaker to go in the brain, but I've never heard of a definite physiological explanation of what happens.

I wouldn't mind betting a boar or wolverine that had taken those injuries would've probably kept kicking for a bit.

Stephen

[Norsesmithy]

Assuming that human physiology is similar to a whitetailed deer's, I don't believe this to be quite right. I don't think deer are capable of thinking they are dead and I have shot several in the chest cavity that have dropped immediately with very minimal movement after falling. Three were shot with a 270 at very close to close range (approx. 10 ft, 20 yards, and 40 yards), and one with a 30-30 at approximately 125 yards.

For the closest one, the bullet fragmented when it hit a rib failed to penetrate past the body cavity on the opposite side. The shrapnel from the bullet tore the lungs to pieces, with the biggest piece about the size of my fist. The deer dropped immediately and twitched its rear foot weakly about two times. The other deer moved sligtly more, though their movements lacked speed and strength.

The other two also suffered considerable damage to the lungs, though none were hit in the heart. One had numerous broken ribs because the deer was facing me when I shot her. The other one had a shattered shoulder/humerus.

The deer shot with the 30-30 also had a shattered shoulder.


Then again, there are deer that are hit quite well and run some distance before falling. It is hard to predict.

Perhaps you meant guaranteed?
Deer and other animals are quite capable of going down for psychological reasons, but one thing to remember about a shot that does a lot of bone damage is that it is pretty easy for a bone or bullet fragment to hit the spine, and that is CNS disruption, which will put something out of the fight RIGHT NOW.

I am reminded of the American stories that rose from the campaign to suppress the Moros, in the Philippines.

You see the Moros were ill equipped fanatics with a superb understanding of the jungle's pharmacological resources, and they learned, very fast, that they could not stand against American Soldiers with their Krag Jorgensson rifles, with the old single shots and muzzle loaders they had.

So they adapted. They would drug a warrior to his eyeballs, and have him sneak as close the American position as possible, and then charge the assembled troops armed only with two of their formidable machetes.

And while the warrior would invariably die, subjected to the accurate and professional fire of an entire platoon of rifle armed men, he could charge 50-60 meters while being perforated by rifle bullets, and actually get close enough to the Americans to start killing them with his machetes.

And the suicide fighter almost always got more than 1 or 2 of them.

Tactics that were successful at stopping the charge were basically limited to shooting him in the spine or head, but that is easier said that done when your target is running wildly towards you.

A few times, a quick thinking soldier would bayonet the Moro, and keep him out of reach, until he died, but that is very very difficult.

It was told, in dispatches home, that the older Single Action Army handguns (still in circulation in the hands of second liners, like cooks and clerks) were more effective than the newer Model 1892 revolvers issued to the officers, because the .45 Colt round was less likely to glance off the skull (when aiming at the head), and more likely to penetrate and reach the spine (when aiming Center of Mass), than the .38 Long Colt round in the newer sidearms. This was one of the driving factors in the specification of the .45 caliber round for the new autoloader in development.

Stories were told of men who would continue to charge despite shoulder wounds that prevented them from swinging their arms, of men who killed soldiers despite missing huge chunks of their torso, due to field gun fire, of men, who when autopsied, had hamburger for hearts despite being killed by a round to the ocular cavity, of men, who were overpowered and pinned down by the bayonets of 3 or 4 soldiers, yet who writhed and tried to fight for more than a minute, despite being pierced through the heart.

When you can remove the psychological factors, people die really slow.

[Mike_G]

Drugs help this a lot.

We like to say on the ambulance that we carry enough drugs to give a steak a heartbeat.

Not a good one, or one that will remain conducive to a happy life, but you see the point.

Once you take away the pain, a guy can fight until he runs out of blood or oxygen. This can be an uncomfortably long time if he's close to you. This is the argument for big rounds that do more tissue damage. If a guy's arm is a wreck, he can't hit you, try though he might. He can't run with no thigh muscle.

[vrellum]

Deer and other animals are quite capable of going down for psychological reasons, but one thing to remember about a shot that does a lot of bone damage is that it is pretty easy for a bone or bullet fragment to hit the spine, and that is CNS disruption, which will put something out of the fight RIGHT NOW.

I am reminded of the American stories that rose from the campaign to suppress the Moros, in the Philippines.

You see the Moros were ill equipped fanatics with a superb understanding of the jungle's pharmacological resources, and they learned, very fast, that they could not stand against American Soldiers with their Krag Jorgensson rifles, with the old single shots and muzzle loaders they had.

So they adapted. They would drug a warrior to his eyeballs, and have him sneak as close the American position as possible, and then charge the assembled troops armed only with two of their formidable machetes.

And while the warrior would invariably die, subjected to the accurate and professional fire of an entire platoon of rifle armed men, he could charge 50-60 meters while being perforated by rifle bullets, and actually get close enough to the Americans to start killing them with his machetes.

And the suicide fighter almost always got more than 1 or 2 of them.

Tactics that were successful at stopping the charge were basically limited to shooting him in the spine or head, but that is easier said that done when your target is running wildly towards you.

A few times, a quick thinking soldier would bayonet the Moro, and keep him out of reach, until he died, but that is very very difficult.

It was told, in dispatches home, that the older Single Action Army handguns (still in circulation in the hands of second liners, like cooks and clerks) were more effective than the newer Model 1892 revolvers issued to the officers, because the .45 Colt round was less likely to glance off the skull (when aiming at the head), and more likely to penetrate and reach the spine (when aiming Center of Mass), than the .38 Long Colt round in the newer sidearms. This was one of the driving factors in the specification of the .45 caliber round for the new autoloader in development.

Stories were told of men who would continue to charge despite shoulder wounds that prevented them from swinging their arms, of men who killed soldiers despite missing huge chunks of their torso, due to field gun fire, of men, who when autopsied, had hamburger for hearts despite being killed by a round to the ocular cavity, of men, who were overpowered and pinned down by the bayonets of 3 or 4 soldiers, yet who writhed and tried to fight for more than a minute, despite being pierced through the heart.

When you can remove the psychological factors, people die really slow.

Deer don't think, "OMG! I've been shot!"

The massive loss of blood due to many wounds is sufficient to cause a massive drop in blood pressure. The drop can rapidly deprive the brain of oxygen, upset homeostasis and cause the animal to black out. That is a physiological response. This can very quickly.

A shot to the spine will not instantly kill something. I've seen animals (mostly squirrels and rabbits) shot through the spine with a 22 and often times they will still be quite mobile with thier front legs.


The Moros warriors probably charged from ambush, a bunch of people shot, almost everyone missed, the people who hit, didn't know when they hit and sometimes the warrior killed some American soldiers.

Also you mentioned pistols. From what I know of this conflict most of the people who continued to fight after a solid torso shot were shot with a pistol, not a rifle. Pistols just aren't very powerful when compared to rifles. For some interesting examples try http://www.theboxotruth.com/

[Theodoric]

A shot to the spine will not instantly kill something. I've seen animals (mostly squirrels and rabbits) shot through the spine with a 22 and often times they will still be quite mobile with thier front legs.
Don't forget that walking is a reflex of sorts; if the front legs can walk, the hind legs do roughly the same with some animals (cats, at least).

[Norsesmithy]

Deer don't think, "OMG! I've been shot!"

The massive loss of blood due to many wounds is sufficient to cause a massive drop in blood pressure. The drop can rapidly deprive the brain of oxygen, upset homeostasis and cause the animal to black out. That is a physiological response. This can very quickly.

A shot to the spine will not instantly kill something. I've seen animals (mostly squirrels and rabbits) shot through the spine with a 22 and often times they will still be quite mobile with thier front legs.


The Moros warriors probably charged from ambush, a bunch of people shot, almost everyone missed, the people who hit, didn't know when they hit and sometimes the warrior killed some American soldiers.

Also you mentioned pistols. From what I know of this conflict most of the people who continued to fight after a solid torso shot were shot with a pistol, not a rifle. Pistols just aren't very powerful when compared to rifles. For some interesting examples try http://www.theboxotruth.com/
The accounts from the campaign to suppress the Moros were quite specific, even rifles didn't stop their fighting.

Heck, even the introduction of the more powerful .30-03 (the immediate predecessor to the .30-06) in the 1903 Springfield didn't do much to kill them faster.

Some Army doctors had reported finding upwards of THIRTY individual identifiable bullet entrance wounds on individuals who succeeded in killing American soldiers. (Source Shotgun News).

The same thing was experienced in Somalia, where the "skinnies" hopped up on khat would often continue to shoot at American positions DESPITE taking multiple .308 hits to the Center of Mass.

And deer very much do go down for psychological reasons. I know a guy who shot a deer that immediately tumbled, and lay, as dead, long enough for him to climb down from his stand and walk 70 yards to the animal, only to have it jump up and run away.

He managed to bring it down with a second shot, but when we were processing it, I found that his first shot merely passed through the muscle on the front of its chest, and did no damage that could explain its dropping like it was hit in the spine.

And the spine, just forward of the shoulders is a CLASSIC aiming point for hunting large and dangerous game, because it has the ability to anchor an animal so quickly.

Of course shooting an animal in the spine behind its front legs doesn't drop them very quickly, a hit there is a MISS not a shot you aim for. And I know that a hit to the spine ahead of the shoulders doesn't cause the animal to cease all brain activity instantly, what it does do is cause the animal to cease all running away or charging instantly. When you are considering dangerous game, or a human attacker, you don't shoot to kill, you shoot to get it/him to STOP.

It doesn't matter if you shoot a charging leopard in the heart at 6 meters, he will have plenty of time to give you a grievous or even life threatening wound before he looses consciousness.

Similarly it doesn't matter if you shoot a determined, crazed, or chemically enhanced gunman in the liver, despite the near perfect record of that shot killing its victims, because he has more than enough time to do you in while you wait for him to die.

Even a hit to the aortic arch will give a person who manages to avoid the psychological effects of a gunshot wound more than enough time to empty a magazine or find some other way to make your life difficult and unpleasant.

Even after total blood deprivation, a person who does not lose conciousness for psychological reasons can have up to 30 seconds of action left before his brain shuts down for physiological reasons.

We, in the now, have video of hostages being beheaded that prove this. They continue to try to scream, and are aware of their surroundings for a surprisingly long time after both the carotid artery and the jugular vein are severed, leaving them with a blood pressure score of 0, and giving the blood in their brain a clear path to drain to.

Of course some switch off before the knife gets even that far, but that is psychological.

[vrellum]

Some Army doctors had reported finding upwards of THIRTY individual identifiable bullet entrance wounds on individuals who succeeded in killing American soldiers. (Source Shotgun News).


I'd like to see a reliable report (I doubt one exists) that can tell me when that person received those bullet wounds. There's no guarantee that people stopped shooting after the person fell. And I'm not sure that Shotgun News is a reliable source. It's certainly not a peer-reviewed journal.


The same thing was experienced in Somalia, where the "skinnies" hopped up on khat would often continue to shoot at American positions DESPITE taking multiple .308 hits to the Center of Mass.


I've never seen a report like that so I can't comment on it, however, the 7.62X51 uses a nonexpanding bullet. These bullets are not nearly as effective at destroying tissue as a similar hunting bullet. So It may be possible to fight for a while after taking a hit to the torso, especially when shot with a bullet that isn't really designed to kill you.

And deer very much do go down for psychological reasons. I know a guy who shot a deer that immediately tumbled, and lay, as dead, long enough for him to climb down from his stand and walk 70 yards to the animal, only to have it jump up and run away.


I don't find anything in this statement to indicate the deer fell down due to psychological reasons. The deer was shot and hit in a nonfatal area. It fell down and later got up. We really don't know why it fell down or why it got back up.

And the spine, just forward of the shoulders is a CLASSIC aiming point for hunting large and dangerous game, because it has the ability to anchor an animal so quickly


Much more common is aiming slightly behind the front leg for a heart or lung shot or for the shoulder itself to anchor the animal. The spine is a small target hiden by a lot of muscle and hair. It is hard to judge its exact location and it is easy to miss.

Even after total blood deprivation, a person who does not lose conciousness for psychological reasons can have up to 30 seconds of action left before his brain shuts down for physiological reasons.

We, in the now, have video of hostages being beheaded that prove this. They continue to try to scream, and are aware of their surroundings for a surprisingly long time after both the carotid artery and the jugular vein are severed, leaving them with a blood pressure score of 0, and giving the blood in their brain a clear path to drain to.

Of course some switch off before the knife gets even that far, but that is psychological.


It is true that the brain does not die immediately after decapitation. Though I think the time is probably less than 15 seconds. However, just because the brain is alive doesn't mean the person is conscious. The same can be said of any wound that causes an immediate and large drop in blood pressure.

People can passout just because they stood up too fast. This is a physiological response and due to a much less dramatic loss of blood than being decapitated.

Ofcourse we also not addressing the fact that the drugs you are talking about affect the consumers physiology.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Hum, actually...check out some of the Victoria Cross awarded people for absolutely insane stories.

There is also several US soldiers who won medals for insane bravery who did not survive the fight but who while adrenaline was pumping did incredible things while having taken damage that should have killed them on the spot.

Examples:

Flight Sergeant Aaron's jaw was broken and part of his face was torn away. He had also been hit in the lung and his right arm was useless. Despite his terrible injuries he managed to level the aircraft out at 3000ft. Unable to speak, Flight Sergeant Aaron urged the bomb aimer with gestures to take over the controls. The crippled bomber made for the nearest Allied bases in North Africa.

Aaron was then assisted to the rear of the aircraft and given morphia. After resting he insisted on returning to the cockpit where he was lifted back into his seat where he made a determined effort to take control and fly the aircraft although his weakness was evident and he was eventuall persuaded to desist. In great pain and suffering from exhaustion he continued to help by writing directions with his left hand.

Five hours after leaving the target fuel was now low, but Bone airfield was sighted. Flight Sergeant Aaron summoned his failing strength to successfully direct the bomb aimer in belly-landing the damaged aircraft in the darkness.

He died nine hours after the aircraft touched down.

On the 27th June, 1942, south of Mersa Matruh, Private Wakenshaw was a member of the crew of a 2-pounder anti-tank gun. An enemy tracked vehicle towing a light gun came within short range. The gun crew opened fire and succeeded in immobilising the enemy vehicle. Another mobile gun came into action, killed or seriously wounded the crew manning the 2-pounder, including Private Wakenshaw, and silenced the 2-pounder. Under intense fire, Private Wakenshaw crawled back to his gun. Although his left arm was blown off, he loaded the gun with one arm and fired five more rounds, setting the tractor on fire and damaging the light gun. A direct hit on the ammunition finally killed him and destroyed the gun. This act of conspicuous gallantry prevented the enemy from using their light gun on the infantry Company which was only 200 yards away. It was through the self sacrifice and courageous devotion to duty of this infantry anti-tank gunner that the Company was enabled to withdraw and to embus in safety.

Despite attacks from roving fighters he completed his bombing run and was on his way back when his aircraft became riddled with bullets and he was severely wounded, his left arm had been shattered, he had a large hole in his back and was drifting in and out of consciousness. He managed to crash-land the Blenheim at Alor Star, without causing any injury to his crew, and was rushed to hospital where he died two hours later.

[Dervag]

I wouldn't mind betting a boar or wolverine that had taken those injuries would've probably kept kicking for a bit.
StephenSince boars have been known to charge up the spear that was impaling them to reach their target, forcing boar hunters to put heavy cross-pieces on their spear-shafts... no takers.


The Moros warriors probably charged from ambush, a bunch of people shot, almost everyone missed, the people who hit, didn't know when they hit and sometimes the warrior killed some American soldiers.Yeah, but since the guy was dead, they could in fact look at him after the fact and figure out how much punishment he took before going down. That would help to sort out any myths pretty fast, I'd think.

[vrellum]

Since boars have been known to charge up the spear that was impaling them to reach their target, forcing boar hunters to put heavy cross-pieces on their spear-shafts... no takers.

Yeah, but since the guy was dead, they could in fact look at him after the fact and figure out how much punishment he took before going down. That would help to sort out any myths pretty fast, I'd think.

Not really. It only tells you how many times he was shot. Without some pretty detailed analysis (which was never done) you don't know if he was shot while standing or on the ground. I'm pretty sure that the soldiers didn't stop shooting at the drug-crazed, sword-wielding dude, just because he fell down.

[Swordguy]

Not really. It only tells you how many times he was shot. Without some pretty detailed analysis (which was never done) you don't know if he was shot while standing or on the ground. I'm pretty sure that the soldiers didn't stop shooting at the drug-crazed, sword-wielding dude, just because he fell down.

OK, fine. I was hoping to stay out of this one.

I have personally witnessed insurgents taking multiple (10+) hits from 5.56 and 7.62 fire, turning around, and running away. We found them some time later, a good 200 meters from our engagement area.

I have personally put multiple 5.56 rounds into a person at fairly close range (20ish meters), and he not only stayed up but actively sought cover and returned fire for several minutes before being incapacitated by a grenade.

In no cases were protective devices (body armor, et al) found. They just had a bunch of holes in them.

I'll not respond further to this line of discussion - I hope personal accounts are sufficient proof. I don't like talking about it, but since you seem unwilling to do the research yourself, there it is. Everyone else, see ya when the next line of discussion starts.

[Yora]

Since boars have been known to charge up the spear that was impaling them to reach their target, forcing boar hunters to put heavy cross-pieces on their spear-shafts... no takers.
Even if they would be instantly killed, a charging boar is a 200 kg mountain of muscles and bones at a speed of 50km/h, that can crush a hunter by the impact alone. And a regular spear would just slice right through it without slowing it down the least.

[Fortinbras]

Fantasy litturature tends to place archers in the role of modern infantry, using modern tactics, especialy in "platoon level" type engagements.

I was wondering what role archers would really have played in small unit engagements

[Yora]

The only use of archer in combat I really know is during sieges or in groups of hundreds raining death on the enemy army.
I don't think they'd be too useful in skirmishes, as there are few targets and they are all frantically moving.

[Crow]

OK, fine. I was hoping to stay out of this one.

I have personally witnessed insurgents taking multiple (10+) hits from 5.56 and 7.62 fire, turning around, and running away. We found them some time later, a good 200 meters from our engagement area.

I have personally put multiple 5.56 rounds into a person at fairly close range (20ish meters), and he not only stayed up but actively sought cover and returned fire for several minutes before being incapacitated by a grenade.

In no cases were protective devices (body armor, et al) found. They just had a bunch of holes in them.

I'll not respond further to this line of discussion - I hope personal accounts are sufficient proof. I don't like talking about it, but since you seem unwilling to do the research yourself, there it is. Everyone else, see ya when the next line of discussion starts.

To add to this, I have personally seen a guy crouching with an rpg take multiple rounds from about 75 meters or so. He dropped the rpg and fell to the ground, then proceeded to pick himself back up and pick his rpg back up before finally getting put down again by another round of gunfire.

[vrellum]

Perhaps I strayed a bit too far. There are undoubtably times when people or animals take massive damage and continue to function.

However, the earlier claim (and some later ones for that matter) seemed to indicate that you could pulverize the target's lungs with a 30-06 and they would regularly keep functioning for 30 seconds or more, if they didn't stop fighting due to psychiological reasons. These cases are the rare exception and not the rule. However, they are the reason police officers empty their guns once they start firing. Well, that and police officers typically use pistols and pistols aren't as effective as rifles.

[Crow]

Perhaps I strayed a bit too far. There are undoubtably times when people or animals take massive damage and continue to function.

However, the earlier claim (and some later ones for that matter) seemed to indicate that you could pulverize the target's lungs with a 30-06 and they would regularly keep functioning for 30 seconds or more, if they didn't stop fighting due to psychiological reasons. These cases are the rare exception and not the rule. However, they are the reason police officers empty their guns once they start firing. Well, that and police officers typically use pistols and pistols aren't as effective as rifles.

As I understand it, the reason police officers empty their guns when they start firing is because they tend to miss. A lot. At least that is the case here in the U.S.

[Godskook]

Fantasy litturature tends to place archers in the role of modern infantry, using modern tactics, especialy in "platoon level" type engagements.

I was wondering what role archers would really have played in small unit engagements

That depends entirely on the level of training said archer has, the support he gets from his team, and the level of armor/training the opponents have. All else being equal, 20 melee fighters versus 19 melee fighters and an archer, my money would be on the second team(It certainly works that way in boffer games, unless the archer is poorly defended).

[Fortinbras]

That depends entirely on the level of training said archer has, the support he gets from his team, and the level of armor/training the opponents have. All else being equal, 20 melee fighters versus 19 melee fighters and an archer, my money would be on the second team(It certainly works that way in boffer games, unless the archer is poorly defended).

Well if this imaginary force constists of maybye thirty proffesional soldiers, ten of which are archers and the remander are melee troops how are they going to be supporting each other in varius situations?

[vrellum]

As I understand it, the reason police officers empty their guns when they start firing is because they tend to miss. A lot. At least that is the case here in the U.S.

Part of it is you never really know how well or where someone is hit.

Part of it is pistols don't do a very good job of stopping someone. People do often survive hits from a pistol, in the torso, at point-blank range, for a considerable amount of time. Definately enough time to shoot back.

Part of it because the miss a lot, (nothing against the police, pretty much everyone misses a lot in those situations).

Part of it is something I forgot to list or maybe don't know.

[tyckspoon]

Part of it is something I forgot to list or maybe don't know.

The last part is that training protocol teaches them to keep shooting until the target actually does go down, under the concept that if you are willing to shoot somebody you are willing to kill them- and if you are willing to kill them as part of a police action, you are probably doing it in defense of yourself or others, so you had dang well better make sure you do kill them or at least terminate the immediate threat. Which feeds back into the discussion about stopping power, because such a doctrine would not be necessary unless people really did tend to keep coming despite injuries that are almost certain to be lethal later.

[Crow]

I remember reading somewhere that the national hit-rate for police officers in the U.S. a few years back was somewhere around the neighborhood of 17%. Does anybody have any data on this? I didn't read this on the internet, but in a police publication. I could be way wrong on the percentage though.

[Stephen_E]

Perhaps I strayed a bit too far. There are undoubtably times when people or animals take massive damage and continue to function.

However, the earlier claim (and some later ones for that matter) seemed to indicate that you could pulverize the target's lungs with a 30-06 and they would regularly keep functioning for 30 seconds or more, if they didn't stop fighting due to psychiological reasons. These cases are the rare exception and not the rule. However, they are the reason police officers empty their guns once they start firing. Well, that and police officers typically use pistols and pistols aren't as effective as rifles.

I think you misunderstood the point.
Yes, generally if someone is shot they go down, BUT there is generally no known actual physiological reason for them doing so. It seems to be a form of psychological shock that drops people, and animals, rather than the actual phtsiological damage dealt.

As for pistol shootings. There was a FBI report on gun wounds ect that commented that in FBI shootings with pistols regardless how many shots were fired by an officier in any particular shooting normally only 2-3 were hits.
I think I have a link to the report somewhere. If so I'll dig it up tonight and post it.

Stephen E

[Dervag]

Though in this case we're blurring the line between psychological and physiological pretty seriously. If a sudden surge of pain hits some kind of "circuit breaker" in the brain and knocks me dead, was that physiology or psychology? It's not as if I made a reasoned decision to lie down and play dead.

[Yora]

That's just physiology. If there's a physical damage, it's not psychological. Though psychological effects can have physical causes.

[Yora]

Well if this imaginary force constists of maybye thirty proffesional soldiers, ten of which are archers and the remander are melee troops how are they going to be supporting each other in varius situations?
Once I'm in the melee, I certainly would not want any fire support from my archer friends. Generally, archers are to be used before the melee starts.
If you have one or two Legolas-style over the top fantasy archers, they would probably fire some arrows when they get a clear shot. But under normal circumstances, that would be highly risky.

[Stephen_E]

Though in this case we're blurring the line between psychological and physiological pretty seriously. If a sudden surge of pain hits some kind of "circuit breaker" in the brain and knocks me dead, was that physiology or psychology? It's not as if I made a reasoned decision to lie down and play dead.

I did say "known physiological reason". I stress "Known".

There may indeed be a physiological switch in the brain that can be triggered through significant internal momumentum transfer through flesh trauma, but no one has identified it at the current time TTBOMK.

There is also no consistient effect. Adrenalin does seem to give a limited amount of protection, but even where adrenalin has no reason to be pumping through the system some people/animals go down, and some don't. Some even die from fairly moderate gunshot wounds despite times to treatment and surgery in seconds and minutes respectively, while other walk around and survive more serious wounds.

When it comes to medicine, illness and injuries there is still huge unknown areas as to what is actually going on.

Stephen E

[Deadmeat.GW]

Just look at the transcript I put in from people who won the VC, especially Private Wakenshaw who lost an arm and kept reloading and firing his artillery piece for another five shots...

The average person who loses an arm is at the least unconscious, often simply dead, without major medical support.

[Norsesmithy]

Though in this case we're blurring the line between psychological and physiological pretty seriously. If a sudden surge of pain hits some kind of "circuit breaker" in the brain and knocks me dead, was that physiology or psychology? It's not as if I made a reasoned decision to lie down and play dead.

For that matter, the people who faint at the sight of blood, they don't have any physical reason to do so, but they don't choose it either.

Is that psychological or physical?

I would call it psychological.

To me, a physical effect is an effect I can map and predict with certainty. If I sever the spinal cord above the brachial plexus, I know that the subject is paralysed from the neck down.

If the effect is only common or expected, but not completely certain, to me, I feel that that effect is likely enough to be psychological for me to safely call it so. Instantaneous brain function loss at 0 blood pressure or blood drainage is an effect where there is enough well documented anecdotal evidence demonstrating its unreliability for me to feel that it is not a physiological effect.

I will bet my life on physiological effects, not psychological effects.

I will not bet my life on a target (whether it is dangerous game or a person I am defending myself from) collapsing instantly just because I sever its aortic arch or carotid artery.

There is a such a thing as a Failure to Stop drill for that very reason.

@Swordguy. I have probably told you this before, but thanks again for your service.

Some friends of mine who were "over there" say that stimulant use is prevalent in the foreign fighter crowd. They even captured stashes of Cocaine, Khat, amphetamines, epinephrine, and benzylpiperazine.

[Stephen_E]

Some friends of mine who were "over there" say that stimulant use is prevalent in the foreign fighter crowd. They even captured stashes of Cocaine, Khat, amphetamines, epinephrine, and benzylpiperazine.

For that matter it's prevalent in US pilots. To many missions in to short a time and amphetamines is the only thing that'll keep you going. It works but.... I recall been told by a US commander (Colonel?) who, during the Iraq invasion, was put through directly to the pilot is a desperate effort to call him off before he took out a group of the commander's people. He managed at the last second but said it was scary how hard it was to get through to the pilot.

Stephen

[Coidzor]

What would a chainmail neck covering be called that extends from the helmet down to the top of the shoulders?

I found my mom's old brass rubbings of the death masks(?) of some English Knights from Westminster Abbey and was wondering what that was called. He appears to be wearing some form of plate on his body, with hinged joints and a conical helmet with some of his forehead, his eyes, nose, mustache, and lips revealed and then below that the rest is that chainmail dealy.

[Norsesmithy]

For that matter it's prevalent in US pilots. To many missions in to short a time and amphetamines is the only thing that'll keep you going. It works but.... I recall been told by a US commander (Colonel?) who, during the Iraq invasion, was put through directly to the pilot is a desperate effort to call him off before he took out a group of the commander's people. He managed at the last second but said it was scary how hard it was to get through to the pilot.

Stephen

The F16 pilot that bombed and strafed that Canadian Column in Afghanistan blamed Amphetemine use, but the court martial didn't buy it.


What would a chainmail neck covering be called that extends from the helmet down to the top of the shoulders?

I found my mom's old brass rubbings of the death masks(?) of some English Knights from Westminster Abbey and was wondering what that was called. He appears to be wearing some form of plate on his body, with hinged joints and a conical helmet with some of his forehead, his eyes, nose, mustache, and lips revealed and then below that the rest is that chainmail dealy.

Its called an Aventail, but I am sure there are probably a couple more names for it.

[Stephen_E]

The F16 pilot that bombed and strafed that Canadian Column in Afghanistan blamed Amphetemine use, but the court martial didn't buy it.


Not surprised they didn't buy it. Assume it's true, and that drug use, that is effectively promoted by the military authorities, is responsible for the deaths of allies or civilians. If they buy it in a court martial they're defacto accepting responsibilty for those deaths on the part of the military and the respective administration.

REALLY not something they want to do.

Regretably the buck rarely goes up.

Stephen

[Adlan]

Fantasy litturature tends to place archers in the role of modern infantry, using modern tactics, especialy in "platoon level" type engagements.

I was wondering what role archers would really have played in small unit engagements

What kind of small unit engaement? Ambush, in a Raid, Urban Fighting?
What sort of Archers? English Warbowmen, Roman Auxillary? Steppe Horse Archers?

Once the enemy gets into hand to hand, I doubt you'd see much archers shooting into combat. too much risk of people shooting their mates, no matter how good a shot you are, in the second it takes the arrow to fly, your target will shift.

[vrellum]

I agree ther would be no shooting into combat. However, the archer could pick off stragglers. Or people who became separated from the melee.

[Fhaolan]

I agree ther would be no shooting into combat. However, the archer could pick off stragglers. Or people who became separated from the melee.

Unfortunately, that would require the archers to be also stragglers and separated from the melee, or standing on platforms above the melee. Otherwise, they would need to shoot *through* melee to reach the targets. And of course taking down stragglers and outliers is a standard combat manuever, which leaves your archers in a very vulnerable position. Which is one of the many reason horse archers were very effective as their mobility reduces their vulnerability.

[vrellum]

Yeah, ideally the archer would be in a defensible position for this to work or more mobile than the enemy.

The best thing to do might be to draw a melee weapon after melee started and join the fray.

[Adlan]

Time for come good old swash buckling. :D


The question really is too broad to answer. The best I can come up with for such a general question is they'd try and do what they did in a larger battle. English Archers would probably be mixed in with the Men at Arms, Shooting as much as they could untill the enemy joined combat and they switch to swords. Horse Archers would Probably try and split the group up, whittle the numbers down untill there was nothing left without ever getting into hand to hand.