Evolution of Warfare

[Draig]

Lol first off i registered on this forum well over a year ago but it wasn't until now that i began getting a real good use out of them.


Ok Gamers. The Next question at hand in my world. As i'm sure anyone possessing a copy of the DM's Guide knows there is a chapter on other kinds of warfare, such as muskets, gunpowder kegs, etc. First off what is your standing on the evolution of warfare in the D&D world, AND if you were to allow it in the campaign how would you go about introducing it. Both for a NEW campaign and one that has already begun with the basics.

[Ragabash]

I'm personally not too fond of the DMG rules for muskets and such, for the simple reason they throw realism out the window far too much for my tastes. An arrow fired in a couple of seconds so an experienced warrior can fire more than one in a six second round... yeah, it's a stretch, but it can be imagined. A first level warrior in a firearms using campaign putting powder in a musket barrel, adding a lead ball, packing the powder properly, putting powder in the firing pan, putting the match in place (matchlock firarms only, flintlocks get to ignore this step), aiming and firing in six seconds... riiiiiight... There was a reason for "pike and powder" formations early on in the age of firearms.

Personally I see the development of powder weapons in D&D as being a solution to the "arcane caster problem". Wizards and sorcerers make good mobile artillery... until they run out of spells. That is unless you have a high level wizard or sorcerer who will be very very expensive to fund, and will want a good reason to be interested in the outcome of whatever war is going on. Firearms are simple to train your troops in, last as long as the musketman is alive and has a source of powder, and don't take years to replace if they get captured or destroyed (unlike having to train or recruit a new arcane caster).

[Eldariel]

I generally don't use them by D&D ruleset simply because the rules are spectacularly poorly suited for different types of weapons. First of all, gunpowder weapons should have far higher armor penetration than arrows, swords or any other such weapon so they should really be almost touch attacks to use (although a case could be made for a heavy crossbow penetrating most armor too), except that thick enough natural armor and correctly shaped Plate should both offer protection, so it should be semi-Touch Attack or so (something the rules don't cover).

Second, as brought up, they should take way longer than 6 seconds to fire for an average soldier. Third, since the ammunition moves way faster, dodging and defensive fighting should be nearly useless against them. I mean, there're all sorts of things that stretch my imagination for arrows and spells, but plain just come crashing down when gunpowder weaponry is involved.

[Asbestos]

I'm personally not too fond of the DMG rules for muskets and such, for the simple reason they throw realism out the window far too much for my tastes. An arrow fired in a couple of seconds so an experienced warrior can fire more than one in a six second round... yeah, it's a stretch, but it can be imagined. A first level warrior in a firearms using campaign putting powder in a musket barrel, adding a lead ball, packing the powder properly, putting powder in the firing pan, putting the match in place (matchlock firarms only, flintlocks get to ignore this step), aiming and firing in six seconds... riiiiiight... There was a reason for "pike and powder" formations early on in the age of firearms.

Personally I see the development of powder weapons in D&D as being a solution to the "arcane caster problem". Wizards and sorcerers make good mobile artillery... until they run out of spells. That is unless you have a high level wizard or sorcerer who will be very very expensive to fund, and will want a good reason to be interested in the outcome of whatever war is going on. Firearms are simple to train your troops in, last as long as the musketman is alive and has a source of powder, and don't take years to replace if they get captured or destroyed (unlike having to train or recruit a new arcane caster).


I very much prefer the Iron Kingdoms approach to guns. The powder is a magical alchemical mix and the weapons all basically have the same firing mechanism (a pin puncturing the divide between the red and black powder that makes up the charge) Adding scientific realism to D&D would just... horribly complicate things I think. I'm all for the scientific application of magic though, again IK and in a less gritty way, Eberron.

That being said, I could see a level of progression in D&D depending on how well known the arcane arts are. Rather than an Industrial Revolution you'd have something like a Magical Revolution where magic becomes more widespread and applied to more and more aspects of life. All that would be holding it back is how easy magic is to accomplish and how entrepeneurial wizards are. So like... capitalist wizards. Eventually it could advance to some sort of Spelljammer-esque level.

[Dervag]

I generally don't use them by D&D ruleset simply because the rules are spectacularly poorly suited for different types of weapons. First of all, gunpowder weapons should have far higher armor penetration than arrows, swords or any other such weapon so they should really be almost touch attacks to use (although a case could be made for a heavy crossbow penetrating most armor too), except that thick enough natural armor and correctly shaped Plate should both offer protection, so it should be semi-Touch Attack or so (something the rules don't cover).Hmm. I'm not sure. Even a heavy leather "buff coat" could provide considerable protection against musket balls at long range.

Plus, protection provided by magic items is a big factor in the game, and there's no obvious reason to assume magic is less effective against bullets than against arrows.

[Riffington]

Bear in mind a few points:
1. The only speed problem with early firearms is reloading. Early firearms were typically shot once per fight - then you pulled out your sword.
(or if you were a badass pirate, you might have a bandolier of pistols).

2. A longbow had better armor penetration than a firearm. The advantage of the firearm was not power - it was that no training was required to use one.

3. Dodging arrows has nothing to do with the arrow velocity. You dodge the same way you dodge a bullet: see when/where they are about to fire.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

There is no need for the DMG gunpowder weapons in any D&D setting. Their cost versus comparable PHB weapons or alchemical weapons is too prohibitive. Also keep in mind that your soldiers will be wasting a feat on exotic weapon proficiency for such weapons, whereas proficiency in bows and similar weapons are included in class features for free. Spellcasters, monsters, and created troops such as undead and effigy constructs (CA) would play a much larger role in warfare technology than firearms in any fantasy setting.

[Raz_Fox]

There is no need for the DMG gunpowder weapons in any D&D setting.

Unless the setting is designed so that they could be in the setting. IK, Ebberon, Spelljammer - all of these could have "Firebows." A heavy, one-shot weapon that'll for one moment give your average nobleman or mercenary the killing power of a mage. How scary is that? Discworld eventually evolved enough that it had "gonnes", why can't a D&D setting?

...

Oh, you said the DMG gunpowder weapons. Nevermind. :smallamused:

[Yahzi]

3. Dodging arrows has nothing to do with the arrow velocity. You dodge the same way you dodge a bullet: see when/where they are about to fire.
Except that you can actually see an arrow coming at you, whereas you can't see a bullet. That makes quite a bit of difference.

In my world there is no evolution of warfare. All the smart people became mages, instead of fooling around with manure until it exploded. As others have pointed out (including Ben Franklin), the early musket really had only one advantage over the longbow: training time. In the D&D world, where proficiency is just a feat away, that hardly matters (and worse, most D&D rule-sets make firearms require Exotic proficiency!)

[Who_Da_Halfling]

You can theoretically see an arrow rather than a bullet, but I think that impression is much more dependent on the size of the projectile than an understanding of its speed. From what I understand (and I can't cite any of this, so I might be talking out my butt), arrows fired at short range (the only range in which the firearms vs. bows argument should really come into play) travelled quite fast enough as to be nearly impossible to react to unless you were already prepared. If a monk can deflect arrows with impunity (which is by itself a difficult task), the main trouble I would have with him deflecting bullets the same way is that it doesn't matter what PART of a bullet hits you in terms of how damaging it is.

-JM

[Asbestos]

You can theoretically see an arrow rather than a bullet, but I think that impression is much more dependent on the size of the projectile than an understanding of its speed. From what I understand (and I can't cite any of this, so I might be talking out my butt), arrows fired at short range (the only range in which the firearms vs. bows argument should really come into play) travelled quite fast enough as to be nearly impossible to react to unless you were already prepared. If a monk can deflect arrows with impunity (which is by itself a difficult task), the main trouble I would have with him deflecting bullets the same way is that it doesn't matter what PART of a bullet hits you in terms of how damaging it is.

-JM

Monk just needs some sort of super-strong piece of metal, rather than his hand, to deflect the bullet. Think Wonder Woman :smalltongue:

[Spiryt]

2. A longbow had better armor penetration than a firearm. The advantage of the firearm was not power - it was that no training was required to use one.


Can I ask for any source? I disscus a lot of this in the net, check the books, and generally do a bit of research, and I can pretty easily say that it's not true.

Actually, arrow with proper head could achieve better penetration at longer ranges against textile/soft targets (my theory). But at shorter ranges... not so much.

And "power" in some sense certainly was an advantage. Most early archebus rounds had kinetic energy in the range of modern semi automatic rifles (M16 Ak47). But insted of 8gr, 7,56 mm full metal jacket, primitive round was 40gr, 20mm ball of pure lead. Imagine the wounds.

Indeed, well shot arrow with proper brodhead could also leave horrible wounds, but usually they certainly weren't so devastating.

If anyone want firearms, they should make a weapon with powerful damage (from dices), some armor penetration (- 2 to effective enemy armor?) and horrible reloading time. (So should crossbow, but what can I say). The ability to use by normal guy thing won't work to well in D&D anyway (as far as I remember 3.5 versions are exotic, lol)

If only weapon won't be from XIX century or later, it shouldn't be overpowered from classic "heroic" point of view (raiding dungeons, tavern brawls and so on).

[TeeEl]

A lot of early firearms tended to have accuracy issues, so I'm fine with using the standard to-hit mechanic for them, letting the various accuracy problems inherent to the firearm counter any increase in penetrative power/difficulty in dodging. It's a bit of a kludgy way to handle it, but it doesn't seem that much of a stretch and would streamline things considerably over trying to handle the various factors involved.

My concept of firearms in D&D: monstrously high reload times (3 or 4 full-round actions), huge damage (around the 2d10, 2d12 ballpark). The damage differential between muskets and longbows would thus end up being exaggerated, but it would help put firearms into their historical niche: elite archers would still dwarf them with their greater rate of fire, but they'd be superior weapons for mooks.

[Riffington]

Can I ask for any source? I disscus a lot of this in the net, check the books, and generally do a bit of research, and I can pretty easily say that it's not true.


I don't have a perfect source, but it was my understanding that firearms didn't start to overtake longbows in power until the 15th century (i.e. long after they had stopped being a curiosity and started to be a standard weapon). I was under the impression that the discussion assumes firearms to be an oddity rather than a standard, meaning you'd want 14th century tech.

[Spiryt]

I don't have a perfect source, but it was my understanding that firearms didn't start to overtake longbows in power until the 15th century (i.e. long after they had stopped being a curiosity and started to be a standard weapon). I was under the impression that the discussion assumes firearms to be an oddity rather than a standard, meaning you'd want 14th century tech.

Define "power". Those are two completely different types of missiles, so they had different qualities.

In the terms of raw kinetic energy of missiles, handguns in 14th were anyway times more powerful than bows, so they don't have to "overtake" longbow, they did it by the very virtue of being a firearm.

Reasons why in 14th century still they were even more popular than bows, were different, but upon them economic, sociological, logistical reasons.
ANd since history (so those ^) will be completely different in fantasy world, so even the "14th century" firearm can be standard in this world.

[Ravens_cry]

In many ways, crossbows, which are used in DnD settings, were the early guns. They had great armor penetration, but shorter range, longer reloading times, and were more affected by the elements. And like guns, they were a breeze to use effectively compared to the life long training of bows.The very concept of a trigger, was invented in the crossbow.

Hmmm, idea. A kingdom that in the distant past was ravaged by evil wizards/clerics/evil dudes. Throwing down thier king for not protecting them, he was hiding quivering in his stone keeps basement, they start a republic. With an ingrained distrust of magic, they still need to protect themselves from those who do, as well as developing the healing sciences. So, with alchemists and natural philosophers on their side, they develop intriguing weaponry. chief among them, and favorite among the citizen army, is the iron staff, basically a gun. They have also discovered that a certain mold exudes a tincture that keeps the demons that cause wound rot at bay. They call it Demon Rotbane.
After a few hundred years however, a chancellor decides to free the peoples of the world from the vile magics that enslave them ,and teach them to be free men, elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings once again. They aren't xenophobic, except with magic, though they do distrust gnomes with their innate skills somewhat, it isn't a big issue, yet.

[Piedmon_Sama]

I usually employ "handcannons" or "handgonnes" or whatever you want to call them in my campaigns. Why? Because guns, in just about any form, are badass. They make a big, loud boom, and usually resolve conflicts in less than the bat of an eye. And unlike the wands or spell-scrolls you might also have, anybody can use one.

That said, harquebuses or muskets are virtually never a good idea for PCs for the aforementioned reasons--too long to reload, horrendously inaccurate, and it will only pierce plate metal at close to point-blank-range anyway. They're incredibly effective military weapons (bear in mind, this is all in my campaign settings, I'd hate to provoke a "r33l h1st0r`/" debate) for three reasons: ease of use (it takes a commoner a few weeks to learn to operate), will inflict horrendous casualties against lightly armored targets when fired en masse, and third, the psychological effect---you'll never hear anything as loud in your life as a cannon blast or a musket volley, and the sight of people dropping around you with bloody holes simply appearing in them is surely terrifying.

On the other hand, for adventurers I have lots of fun with pistols. Small one-shot dueling pistols are worn by the half-dozen by cavaliers and roguish types. I have an NPC in one campaign right now who's got a miniature pistol strapped under his glove sleeve. Then you get the oddities--pistols with three or four barrels, pistols with a barrel that doubles as sword or axe, or my personal favorite, the pistol-mace.... all real devices, although they never functioned in real life. Doesn't mean they can't in your campaign!

As for rifles, the ultimate in combining the power of black powder with the precision of a trained marksman.... I've never used one yet, but I'm considering putting them in my next setting as a unique and rare device that must be built-to-order by someone with a lot of cash and connections in the Gnomish warcrafter guilds. The Gnomes themselves might combine scoped longrifles with Leonardo da Vinci style flying machines to make the most badass border guard in the setting.

[Neon Knight]

And "power" in some sense certainly was an advantage. Most early archebus rounds had kinetic energy in the range of modern semi automatic rifles (M16 Ak47). But insted of 8gr, 7,56 mm full metal jacket, primitive round was 40gr, 20mm ball of pure lead. Imagine the wounds.



Source. I simply cannot beleive that black powder produced anywhere near the velocity of modern smokeless gunpowder. That is quite possibly the most "contrary to everything I have ever read" statement I have ever seen on the internet.

Also, the M16 is a 5.56x45mm weapon, the AK-47 a 7.62x39mm weapon. Neither is 7.56mm. And that 8 grain has to be a typo. A .22 LR is like a 30 or 40 grain.

Anyway, the ability of any weapon to penetrate any armor is highly speculative and probably unprovable. Especially considering that these weapons and armor were made by craftsman, and thus quality and effectiveness varied massively.

In other words, rule of cool is probably the way to go, because there is pretty much no historical or scientific consensus, just warring factions.

[Eldritch_Ent]

If I recall, ancient handguns (Especailly the first muskets) were horrendously UNDERpowered at anything but point-blank range. (However, they were frightening.)

I mean, they couldn't even penetrate heavy clothes at 30 feet... Naw, the REAL danger was, if ssomeone got nicked on the battlefield, it would more often than not get infected, and their only cure for infections was either amputation, or a long, painful death... Be glad modern guns will kill you on the spot rather than that, even though our medical tech has advanced quite a bit since then/

But that's just what I've heard, don't take it at face value. :smalltongue:

[Prometheus]

I don't know much about the realistic-historical aspect of firearms (neither does D&D with a lot of it's historical stuff), but I think there are a couple things that I know about firearms that need to be present for them to make sense:
-long firing time (more than one round)
-quick shot (maybe negate some dodging or deflection)
-penetrating shot (maybe negate some armor bonus)
-wildly inaccurate at far distances (low range increment)
-puff of smoke (concealment cloud that slowly dissipates)
The end result is something that acts more like the siege weapon mechanics than the ranged attack mechanics. There is not really any aiming, only efficient operation and a general area. I say half bonuses to AC from deflection, insight, armor, and natural armor but not luck and other magical bonuses. The musket takes two (three?) rounds to load and has a flat bonus to attack (+5?) and a range increment of 15 (with no maximum), and it creates a 20% concealing cloud in the space in front of the shooter for 1d4-1 rounds thereafter. It deals something appropriate...3d12?

[Asbestos]

Anyway, the ability of any weapon to penetrate any armor is highly speculative and probably unprovable.

Quick! Someone go posit this to the Mythbusters!
Or, if anyone knows a good armorsmith and has a 14th century firearm, we could solve this right quick.

Something that people may be leaving out in this "firearms vs bows" debate is that lead balls and gunpowder, once you have the raw materials, are considerably easier to mass produce than arrows.

[Ravens_cry]

Plus, for a blunderbuss, it was basiclly meant to be loaded with watever was on hand. Nails, rocks, whatever. Basically a primitve shotgun.

[Spiryt]

Source. I simply cannot beleive that black powder produced anywhere near the velocity of modern smokeless gunpowder. That is quite possibly the most "contrary to everything I have ever read" statement I have ever seen on the internet.

Also, the M16 is a 5.56x45mm weapon, the AK-47 a 7.62x39mm weapon. Neither is 7.56mm. And that 8 grain has to be a typo. A .22 LR is like a 30 or 40 grain.

Anyway, the ability of any weapon to penetrate any armor is highly speculative and probably unprovable. Especially considering that these weapons and armor were made by craftsman, and thus quality and effectiveness varied massively.

In other words, rule of cool is probably the way to go, because there is pretty much no historical or scientific consensus, just warring factions.

As for direct source, I'm searching for the site of the guy who made a replica. Nice site for reference, which I haven't bookmarked of course. As far as I remember guy get about 1540 Joules out of it. Hope to find it tommorow.

As for calibur, you're obviously right. 7,62, not ,56. It wasn't about any concrete round, just the fact that calibur of early firearms was much bigger.

By 8gr I meant grammes, and that's the weight of standard 7,62 bullet. That would be about 125 grains. Damn units.

As for energy, I have no idea why it should be contrary. Black powder may don't allow such velocities (I don't know) - but it's unimportant, as the mass of the projectile is much greater so kinetic energy ends the same even though velocity is much more efficent way of increasing the kinetic energy.

And as far as I know, while the much more amount of black powder is required to give the same energy, compared to the smokeless, it doesn't necesarry mean velocity differences.

Penetration : well, the certain things are that:

- lead bullet is flatten against steel plate, so plate armor cannot deflect it as it can for example arrow.
- while it looses much energy on flattening, still have much more of it than any bow
- so it can still punch trough plate by sheer k.energy (since the chance of deflecting is lowered), even though arrow is much better at concentrating it's KE ( it doens't do much as it usually will deflect)
- especially considering that greater velocity is good at defeating steel (more likely to get trough than cause a dent)

And so other such facts, that make bullet much better candidate to plate puntcturing than arrow.

Also, rhe fact is that XVI century is period of greatest armor development. Cuirassier Armor (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_2002.130a-p.jpg) like that, could weight more than 40kg on average man, and was probably the heaviest personal battle armor in history. It was developed specially do grant immunity to musket bullets when charging on horse. Judging on this, it's quite obvious that earlier, lighter and less restricitve plate armors weren't nearly as effective protection against firearms, as against other weapon types. And after XVI century, partially beacuse of firearms, armor slowly dissapears.. blah, blah, everyone knows that.

So I would say that those are sufficent to claim that early, XVth century firearms had nice chances to defeat even most elaborate steel armor.

At least grater chances than other missile weapons, as certainly it still wasn't so easy.

[Neon Knight]

Then, good sir, we duel.


As for direct source, I'm searching for the site of the guy who made a replica. Nice site for reference, which I haven't bookmarked of course. As far as I remember guy get about 1540 Joules out of it. Hope to find it tommorow.


Was he using historically accurate gunpowder and historically accurate metallurgy?



As for energy, I have no idea why it should be contrary. Black powder may don't allow such velocities (I don't know) - but it's unimportant, as the mass of the projectile is much greater so kinetic energy ends the same even though velocity is much more efficent way of increasing the kinetic energy.


Black powder is extremely inefficient compared to smokeless gunpowder. Smokeless gunpowder is roughly 3 times as powerful, and gives more power for less powder. The difference between the two is massive. Smokeless gunpowder truly killed armor until modern body armor developed in our own time.

Secondly, you have just put your foot into a massive debate. Which kills people, and which is better for penetrating materials, mass or velocity? Guess what. There is NO solid consensus. Certain factions advocate that mass is more important, while others assert that velocity is more important. Traditionally, things moving faster are better at penetrating than larger things moving slower.



And as far as I know, while the much more amount of black powder is required to give the same energy, compared to the smokeless, it doesn't necessary mean velocity differences.


Yes. Yes it does. It means a big difference. BIG. Three times as powerful. It's not like you can put in more blackpowder than you can smokeless. Whenever your metallurgy allows it, you use smokeless powder. It is almost 100% better in every situation. Guaranteed.
Penetration : well, the certain things are that:



- lead bullet is flatten against steel plate, so plate armor cannot deflect it as it can for example arrow.


Logically, wouldn't the bullet then lose all its kinetic energy, wasting it by flattening it out on the surface of the armor and dispersing it over a larger surface area? That's what happens to modern day jacketed hollow point bullets against modern armor.



- while it looses much energy on flattening, still have much more of it than any bow


Doubtful. You would be surprised at what crossbows, bows, and gravity can do together.




Also, rhe fact is that XVI century is period of greatest armor development. Cuirassier Armor (http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/images/h2/h2_2002.130a-p.jpg) like that, could weight more than 40kg on average man, and was probably the heaviest personal battle armor in history. It was developed specially do grant immunity to musket bullets when charging on horse. Judging on this, it's quite obvious that earlier, lighter and less restricitve plate armors weren't nearly as effective protection against firearms, as against other weapon types. And after XVI century, partially beacuse of firearms, armor slowly dissapears.. blah, blah, everyone knows that.


So I would say that those are sufficent to claim that early, XVth century firearms had nice chances to defeat even most elaborate steel armor.


Oh so very debatable. Armor existed in the civil war. Yes, the American Civil War. It was bought by wealthy men looking to defend themselves. Its effectiveness is debatable.

Rather than try to point the finger at personal blackpowder firearms, why not consider cannon, which even the best plate cannot stand up to? Consider the changing model of warfare which favored hordes of cannon fodder conscripts. Consider the move away from siege warfare (due to cannon) and the focus on a more mobile style of fighting.

Any of those could have caused armor to fall out of favor, even if it still was effective against bullets.



At least grater chances than other missile weapons, as certainly it still wasn't so easy.

The Real Weapons and Armor thread has had epic debates with no consensus on whether bows can penetrate plate. Look it up sometime.

According to the bow faction, plate was like cardboard to skilled, well equipped longbowmen. To the armor faction, a man in plate was safe against most weapons the battlefield. Even during the blackpowder age.

[TeeEl]

Any of those could have caused armor to fall out of favor, even if it still was effective against bullets.

I don't have any hard sources to offer offhand, but it's always been my understanding that armor fell out of use because it was inefficient rather than ineffective. For pike-and-gunpowder infantry, formation was everything, which made mobility a key issue; even if armor could stop a clear majority of the bullets that hit it, if it burdened the infantry to the point where they could be more easily outflanked then it may not have been a worthwhile trade-off.

[BRC]

My current campaign uses gunpowder. I toyed around with various ideas, then I realized this is a world where somebody can throw the laws of physics out the window simply by being really really good looking (Sorcerers), and gave up on trying to make things realistic.

[Spiryt]

Found it.
Here (http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html) on diagrams, you can see that he reached about 340 meters/sec velocity, so velocity of modern pistol bullets. With much heavier bullets, of course so it resulted in about 1500 joules of energy.
All made with 14th century handgonne replica, 4,5 g of black powder and of course a ball.


Yes. Yes it does. It means a big difference. BIG. Three times as powerful. It's not like you can put in more blackpowder than you can smokeless. Whenever your metallurgy allows it, you use smokeless powder. It is almost 100% better in every situation. Guaranteed.
Penetration : well, the certain things are that:

Yes, so as one must use 2, 5, or even more g of black powder in muskets, and so. Velocity effect - not sure.


Doubtful. You would be surprised at what crossbows, bows, and gravity can do together.

I use to shoot a bow (weak one, but still), so I have general idea. And biggest energy that can be generated by traditional bow would be about 170 J. It's probably the biggest and the meanest bow that man could draw, but why not. Here (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131) it's stated that Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland approximate famous English Warbow at 146 J (with 1663 grain arrow).
Sheer energy of arrows is nothing compared to energy of firearms.

However, much better sectional density of arrows, better concentration of energy and other qualities, make them quite comparable in many aspects(and better at penetrating sandbags, heh).
Here (http://www.worldatlatl.org/Articles/TakochCD/HOW%20hard%20does%20it%20hit%20revised.pdf) another source about energy of arrows, and also nicely desrcibed stuuf about sectional density, momentum and this stuff.


Logically, wouldn't the bullet then lose all its kinetic energy, wasting it by flattening it out on the surface of the armor and dispersing it over a larger surface area? That's what happens to modern day jacketed hollow point bullets against modern armor.

Yes, but plate armor isn't modern armor. The very point of modern armors is that they can disperse horrid energy of bullets over them, yes?

Few mm thick plate aren't nearly as good as it. Before it can disperse all energy, bullet is trough. As you wrote:


Traditionally, things moving faster are better at penetrating than larger things moving slower.

I can show interesting example of 7,65 pistol bullet, which can defeat steel helmet, even though heavier, more powerful 0.45 from Colt can't.

It's faster so it can fly trough, while 0.45 will do powerful dent, but won't get trough, even if it has way greater EK.

The same would apply for arrow vs. round, I think.

Here (http://www.kryminalistyka.fr.pl/praktyka_helm_03.php). In polish, but descriptions of bullets are the same.:smallwink:

[EvilElitest]

I very much prefer the Iron Kingdoms approach to guns. The powder is a magical alchemical mix and the weapons all basically have the same firing mechanism (a pin puncturing the divide between the red and black powder that makes up the charge) Adding scientific realism to D&D would just... horribly complicate things I think. I'm all for the scientific application of magic though, again IK and in a less gritty way, Eberron.

That being said, I could see a level of progression in D&D depending on how well known the arcane arts are. Rather than an Industrial Revolution you'd have something like a Magical Revolution where magic becomes more widespread and applied to more and more aspects of life. All that would be holding it back is how easy magic is to accomplish and how entrepeneurial wizards are. So like... capitalist wizards. Eventually it could advance to some sort of Spelljammer-esque level.

ebberon and someparts of FR do that but you have to avoid it becoming too much like lost oddessy.
from
EE

[Neon Knight]

Found it.
Here (http://www.musketeer.ch/blackpowder/handgonne.html) on diagrams, you can see that he reached about 340 meters/sec velocity, so velocity of modern pistol bullets. With much heavier bullets, of course so it resulted in about 1500 joules of energy.
All made with 14th century handgonne replica, 4,5 g of black powder and of course a ball.


He uses modern metals, capable of tolerating greater stresses. The metal could also theoretically act different upon the round than the more primitive metallurgy of the medieval. Its conclusiveness is in doubt.

Also, modern pistol bullets are very, very different from modern rifle bullets. Nowhere near a .303 British or a .30-06.



Yes, so as one must use 2, 5, or even more g of black powder in muskets, and so. Velocity effect - not sure.


I'm not quire sure I understand what you mean by this sentence.




I use to shoot a bow (weak one, but still), so I have general idea. And biggest energy that can be generated by traditional bow would be about 170 J. It's probably the biggest and the meanest bow that man could draw, but why not. Here (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11131) it's stated that Robert Hardy and Matthew Strickland approximate famous English Warbow at 146 J (with 1663 grain arrow).
Sheer energy of arrows is nothing compared to energy of firearms.

However, much better sectional density of arrows, better concentration of energy and other qualities, make them quite comparable in many aspects(and better at penetrating sandbags, heh).
Here (http://www.worldatlatl.org/Articles/TakochCD/HOW%20hard%20does%20it%20hit%20revised.pdf) another source about energy of arrows, and also nicely desrcibed stuuf about sectional density, momentum and this stuff.


Hold on. I'm hunting for those discussion about arrows and armor penetration. Please stand by.

[Spiryt]

He uses modern metals, capable of tolerating greater stresses. The metal could also theoretically act different upon the round than the more primitive metallurgy of the medieval. Its conclusiveness is in doubt.

Actualy, on the same site, he shows how he did it. No modern technologies, just anvil. And even if he used some much better steel, it won't change that much, beacuse powder and whole design, is medieval.
Besides, medieval metalurgy won't that primitive in this things (certainly not more than this guy workshop). They couldn't make a train, but at froging weapons from steel, they were good.

So yes, it's pretty conclusive, especially considering that it's one of the most primitive form of firearm.



Also, modern pistol bullets are very, very different from modern rifle bullets. Nowhere near a .303 British or a .30-06.

Of course, they are! And I never said that muskets could have for example Garand round EK (about 4000 J, am I right?). But certainly they can have about 2000 +. Can find more data, few museum made a tests (I'm afraid those will be books, though).



Hold on. I'm hunting for those discussion about arrows and armor penetration. Please stand by.

I've read few of them, a well as many discussion on myArmory, and other different forums. I'll gladly see if I can learn something more of course.


I'm not quire sure I understand what you mean by this sentence.
By this sentence, I understand that the guy used almost 5g of black powder to give the round 1500J of energy.

Mass of the powder in 5,56 NATO is 1,5g, I think, and energy can be much greater than 1500, with long barrel.

And that's the difference in power, not that smokeless powder can give bullet much greater velocity. To test that, one would have to shoot something of 5,56 size with 5g of black powder.

Have you some sources that state that indeed, black powder won't give that velocity?
The fact that in before smokeless era, noone was even trying to use such light bullets (EK wasachieved, with slower heavy rounds) seems to confirm that, but it's always better to be sure.

[Neon Knight]

Actualy, on the same site, he shows how he did it. No modern technologies, just anvil. And even if he used some much better steel, it won't change that much, beacuse powder and whole design, is medieval.
So yes, it's pretty conclusive, especially considering that it's most primitive form of firearm.

The properties of the metal can affect the performance of the weapon greatly. I'm not convinced until the metallurgy is equivalent.

[Spiryt]

The properties of the metal can affect the performance of the weapon greatly. I'm not convinced until the metallurgy is equivalent.

Maybe in case of modern sophisticated firearms, not in the case of weapon forged on anvil from iron bar (I don't really know what can be made to iron, to make it so great), that can shoot with different powder amounts...

It just can't be so great. Even if there is some difference, it would maybe drop EK to 1300, maybe even 1000 J.

But, still, I doubt - normal anvil and a hammer as you can see.

Also, as you can see, he made other version from modern construction steel St37, and it actually proven ot be worse than iron one. (second diagram, energy of only 1000 J)

It has shorter barrel, though, maybe that's the difference.

[Neon Knight]

Of course. In case of modern sofisticated firearms, not in the case of weapon forged on anvil from iron bar (I don't really know what can be made to iron, to make it so great), that can shoot with different powder amounts...

Also, as you can see, he made other version from modern construction steel St37, and it actually proven ot be worse than iron one. (second diagram, energy of only 1000 J)

It has shorter barrel, though, maybe that's the difference.

I'll concede that his results are probable, but not iron clad. There is room for doubt that his figures might not be 100% accurate, but I grudgingly admit that as ballpark figures, they probably aren't bad.

[Spiryt]

I'll concede that his results are probable, but not iron clad.
Well, everything is possible, but what can be really cheated on such, nice but obviously primitive piece?



There is room for doubt that his figures might not be 100% accurate, but I grudgingly admit that as ballpark figures, they probably aren't bad.

Especially considering how short barrels this thing has. Later muskets could be damn long, (not to mention more advanced in general).

They energy must be immense, and their effects on the target... Yuck.

I wanted just to point out that the developmnent of firearms doesn't mean moar power, (especially that it wasn't so possible up to now when we have monsters like Barrett) but rather other things.

MP5 can be way less powerul than this thing, but this doesn't change the fact that any non suicidal guy would choose MP5 as a weapon, if he had choice between those two.:smallwink:

Also, my last post today, sorry. I must sleep, honestly. Damn round earth.

[Yahzi]

You can theoretically see an arrow rather than a bullet, but I think that impression is much more dependent on the size of the projectile than an understanding of its speed.
A quick Google shows that an arrow from a 70 lb bow (quite big) goes perhaps 300 fps, while a bullet from a .45 (quite slow) goes at least 800 fps (and smaller, faster bullets hit 2000-3000). That's a pretty dramatic difference.

However, you are right that at 30 feet nobody is dodging nothing. :smallbiggrin:

[Prophaniti]

Early firearms (referring to 14th century and earlier) did not have a great deal of armor-penetrating capability. As has been stated, their main advantage was in ease of use and training. Longbows were the order of the day if you needed to mow down heavily armored infantry or cavalry. Recall, the Battle of Agincourt was fought in 1415, and was won by english longbows, not english muskets. I recall hearing that the term 'bullet-proof' actually originated with medieval armorers firing pistols at their work to demonstrate its effectiveness. I can't source that, however, so take it for what it's worth.

It was not until the 16th and 17th centuries that firearms advanced sufficiently to begin making armor obsolete.


Especially considering how short barrels this thing has. Later muskets could be damn long, (not to mention more advanced in general).

They energy must be immense, and their effects on the target... Yuck.

You're misinterpreting here. Longer barrels had nothing to do with power, but rather accuracy. This was before the invention of rifling, and a smooth-bore gun firing lead balls is hellishly inaccurate. You can lessen the problem by making the barrel longer, but it reaches a point of diminishing returns. Rifling fixed that problem. See this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#History) for more information.

Also, I'd just like to point out that any comparison of modern firearms means very little when discussing medieval technology. Blackpowder weapons were very different from what we have today, and it took some time (centuries) before 'bringing a sword to a gunfight' actually became a stupid thing to do.

[Yahzi]

A lot of early firearms tended to have accuracy issues,
Exactly. They were used in mass, fired at masses of men. Like the pike, their effectiveness on the battlefield did not translate into effectiveness as a personal weapon.

[Fawsto]

I am sure I once found a video from a reliable source where some guys are actualy making tests with Plate and 14th century pistols. Well it was amazing but the Plate can actualy hold the Bullet. Well, with one price: A fist-sized crater on the armor that would had mostly killed the wearer due to heavy trauma.

Point taken, guys. The problem wasn't the penetration, but how many bones and internal trauma the bullet would cause in the impact. A broken rib by the 14th century meant, almost all the times, slow and painful death.

Now, another thing. Would you, during a massive combat in a war, prefer to kill your enemies instantly or hurt them very, very badly? I'd say that I would prefer to hurt. When you kill one soldier you are removing one soldier from the battle. When you hurt a soldier badly, you are, at least, removing 3 soldiers from the battle: The guy you just shot and 2 of his friends who are now desperate to find help for their comrade.

Besides the ease to use firearms, they had this "grim" potential: hurting badly. A Longbow facing a well made plate would pierce it. I am convinced of it. So they would, when hitting the chest, cause a obviously deadly wound. A soldier with this kind of injury is not taking medical care, everybody knows he is doomed, when they see that enourmous piece of wood craved on the guys chest they know that he is not going to make it. Now, a bullet is far more subtle. The wound is big, but not that evident since clothes are hiding most of the injury, besides that you would be asking yourself why the guy next to you just fell down, and saying to yourself: "damn he must be hurt, I should help this guy". If you are not thinking in a bunch of other stuff already.

I think that the ability to incapacitate, the psicological effects and the ease to use were the greatest advantages of firearms.

By the rulings. Long reload times, short accuracy and heavy damage (but not too heavy). Besides that, target gets -6 on his AC to deduce dex and dodge bonuse. It is impossible to "dodge" the bullet. See one of the last week episodes of Mythbusters, the one with "Ninja deflecting bullets with bare hands". Note that to "touch" the bullet the machine had 3 times faster reaction time than a normal human. But we are talking about DND, we are not talking about normal humans, are we? So I think it is good enought if the 25 dex Rogue can dodge a few lead balls.

[Fawsto]

Damn be the internetzors!!! Double post. Sorry.

[Neon Knight]

Now, another thing. Would you, during a massive combat in a war, prefer to kill your enemies instantly or hurt them very, very badly? I'd say that I would prefer to hurt. When you kill one soldier you are removing one soldier from the battle. When you hurt a soldier badly, you are, at least, removing 3 soldiers from the battle: The guy you just shot and 2 of his friends who are now desperate to find help for their comrade.



Grrrhhh.. Not this again!

If he's not dead, he's not out of the fight. Men fatally wounded and in a massive amount of pain have dealt fatal blows to their slayers quite handily, both with melee weapons and with firearms. As long as he has an arm and can control it, he can shoot a pistol or stab with a dagger.

This came up recently in the Real Weapons and Armor thread. There have been tons of incidents were fighters have fatally wounded each other. It often happened when one impaled the other on his weapon, but was unable to recover quickly enough to prevent his foe from returning the favor.

When you're fighting, you want the other man dead. ASAP. Every second he can fight is another second you've given him to kill you.

[tyckspoon]

When you're fighting, you want the other man dead. ASAP. Every second he can fight is another second you've given him to kill you.

Seconded. Were I in the position of a combatant on the field, I would hope to kill my enemies in order to best prevent them doing the same to me. However, if I were in a position that granted me the luxury of operating in a bigger picture, I would want the soldiers under me to cause disabling wounds in preference to killing. The concept of a wound being better than a kill comes into play in the aftermath of a fight, not during the battle- both a dead casualty and a merely wounded casualty remove a soldier from combat, but the dead man requires only disposing of the body (relatively minimal expense, depending on arrangements) while health care for the wounded is a long-term drain on your enemy's resources. It's a strategic doctrine, which isn't always the same thing as the most immediately effective way for somebody to fight.

[Rei_Jin]

The other aspect to fighting in a war, is that the soldiers are there doing a job. They're professional about it. That means that they do what they set out to do with a minimum of fuss. If someone else gets in the way, you kill them or avoid them, because they'll do the same as you. You don't have anything personally against your opponent when you're a soldier (generally), so you treat them with mercy. Killing them quickly IS mercy in war. Causing them pain to leave them alive is not merciful, and professional soldiers will try to avoid doing that as much as possible, if for no other reason than you wouldn't want that done to you. Either kill me, or leave me alone. Don't shoot me in the stomach and leave me to bleed out.

[Prophaniti]

When you're fighting, you want the other man dead. ASAP. Every second he can fight is another second you've given him to kill you.
The idea that wounding is preferable comes from the strategic outlook, not that of the individual. Of course you want the guy attacking you stopped in the most expedient and efficient method possible, and it doesn't get much more of either than death.

On the other hand, as a commander, especially of a long-term campaign, you realize that a wounded soldier costs the other side much more than a dead one (provided you're fighting someone who cares about their wounded, of course). It's a pretty Machiavelian thing to consider, but it's usually true.

[Dervag]

Point taken, guys. The problem wasn't the penetration, but how many bones and internal trauma the bullet would cause in the impact. A broken rib by the 14th century meant, almost all the times, slow and painful death.Wait, what?

I mean, punctured lungs were almost always fatal, yes. But people break ribs quite often, especially if they lead an active life where there's a significant chance of falling or getting struck hard.

[Spiryt]

I recall hearing that the term 'bullet-proof' actually originated with medieval armorers firing pistols at their work to demonstrate its effectiveness. I can't source that, however, so take it for what it's worth.

Indeed, that was 16th, 17th century way of checking if armor is even suitable for protcting against bullets. If breastplate couldn't stop a small power pistol round, it wasn't considered worth the money, I suppose.

And as I said, some 16th century armors were actually heaviest man armor ever. And even when full armor dissapeared, curaisiers and husars were wearing very thick breastplates. Solid protection of most probable target, without burden of arms and legs.



You're misinterpreting here. Longer barrels had nothing to do with power, but rather accuracy. This was before the invention of rifling, and a smooth-bore gun firing lead balls is hellishly inaccurate. You can lessen the problem by making the barrel longer, but it reaches a point of diminishing returns. Rifling fixed that problem. See this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifle#History) for more information.

Are you saying that the "longer barrel - longer time of fumes action ec" doesn't work with smoothbor-bore weapons? This seems counter intuitive, any sources? Beacuse in most causes (at least modern firearms) barrel lenght have everything to do with power, obviously.



Also, I'd just like to point out that any comparison of modern firearms means very little when discussing medieval technology. Blackpowder weapons were very different from what we have today, and it took some time (centuries) before 'bringing a sword to a gunfight' actually became a stupid thing to do.

Of course. That's what we were suggesting for D&D stats of them - not very good weapon for classic adventurer.

Comparison in terms of easiness of use, rate of fire, encumbrance is pointless from the point of poor blackpowders, but we were talking about the bullet balistics, which aren't so very different - piece of metal is flying very fast, so have certain unpleasant qualities. That simple basis hadn't changed much.



I am sure I once found a video from a reliable source where some guys are actualy making tests with Plate and 14th century pistols. Well it was amazing but the Plate can actualy hold the Bullet. Well, with one price: A fist-sized crater on the armor that would had mostly killed the wearer due to heavy trauma.
A broken rib by the 14th century meant, almost all the times, slow and painful death.

That also shows that pistol, quit naturally meant shorter barrel -and shorter barrel meant not sufficinet velocity - hence dent, not velocity.

And o broken rib is absurd. If those broken rib pierced the lungs, or something- maybe. But there's nothing deadly in broken rib, many people are breaking ribs and they're alive. Especially considering that even modern medicine doesn't have any super cool way of treating them.
Plaster, or some solid bandage, to stiff evethe chest, and that's all.

[Reinboom]

I fully support a more accurate accounting of the evolution of warfare, just slowed down a bit to keep it semi fantasy/D&D in tone.
Usually, my PCs aren't fabricating power cores out of scraps inside caves until level 9.

[Fawsto]

@ Dervag


Of course breaking a rib or any other bone is not a problem... nowdays. Any broken bone can cause a infection, the diference is that an infection today is far less lethal than 5 hundred years ago.


@ Karskin


Ok I am not saying that this can not happen, but taking on account every battle in every war from 14th century to today, how many man who sustained fatal wounds killed their agressors in return? Does this number excedes 50% of the cases? Does it even excedes or matches 10% of the cases?

I am suspect to talk about this because I have never been shot in my life (an experience that I am not desperate to have), but my guess is that a shot in the stomach, lungs or spleen is very, very painful to the extreme. Unless you are completely filled with adrenaline (It is common, however, during battles) and desperate to cast vengeance over the bastard who just shot you, you are falling to the ground in pain and crying for help, because you will probably be filled with fear too. I dont know if "The Rescue of Private Ryan" is a reliable source for an example, but take the first scene in the film to represent what I said. Lots of people dying, but other lots of people trying to help the wounded.

And I think that during a war you dont have the time to check if your enemy is dead, so, the most of what you can get is to be certain that he is disabled. Wich a confirmed shot to the stomach is guarantee of.

My op. though.

[Jayabalard]

I'm personally not too fond of the DMG rules for muskets and such, for the simple reason they throw realism out the window far too much for my tastes. An arrow fired in a couple of seconds so an experienced warrior can fire more than one in a six second round... yeah, it's a stretch, but it can be imagined. A first level warrior in a firearms using campaign putting powder in a musket barrel, adding a lead ball, packing the powder properly, putting powder in the firing pan, putting the match in place (matchlock firarms only, flintlocks get to ignore this step), aiming and firing in six seconds... riiiiiight... There was a reason for "pike and powder" formations early on in the age of firearms.On the other hand, flintlocks had a higher rate of fire than many heavy crossbows, so the lack of realism isn't just there for the black powder weapons.

[fusilier]

I've always been rather disappointed by D&D's treatment of blackpowder weapons. Some of the books in 2nd AD&D had some interesting rules (although they were inconsistent throughout the books). I've had a little practical experience with a matchlock musket, and like to think I know a lot about history. So here's my historical background.

Early, early guns (or gonnes), were simply "hand cannons." You held the barrel in one hand, and touched it off with the other hand. Gradually they started sticking these things on the end of poles, and eventually introduced a lock with a "tricker" (trigger).

Early guns must have been at least as effective as crossbows, or much cheaper, otherwise they wouldn't have been used. By the end of the 15th century the arquebus or harquebus was in fairly common use. It had the basic parts of a modern gun (lock, stock and barrel). It had a relatively short barrel. I think rifling was invented around this time as well . . . but was rare and expensive, reserved usually for hunting weapons.

These early harquebuses were effective against armor (yes even plate). As a result, armor got heavier and thicker. Also as it got heavier it started to be reduced to just the vital areas (helmet, and back and breast-plate). This led to the introduction of the "musket" by the mid 1500s. A much bigger weapon with a longer barrel, and usually requiring a "rest" to prop it on.

A long bow was still very effective against armor, but as the saying goes, to train a bowman, you start by training his grandfather. Whereas you could probably train a pretty competent musketeer in a few weeks. There's no particular reason to believe that an arrow was more damaging at longer ranges, perhaps more accurate, but not more damaging.

Dodging:
I've heard that spanish soldiers in the Americas, would turn themselves sideways when they saw an arrow coming at them. Even though most primitive guns fired their bullets at subsonic speeds, I doubt you could see one coming. However, a matchlock weapon is a tricky thing to fire too quickly, you can actually extinguish the match in the priming powder if you pull the trigger too hard! A musketeer with a rest can't readjust his aim very quickly either. Swordsmen were instructed to approach a musketeer by zig-zagging.

Bullet-proof armor:
By the second half of the 16th century bullet proof armor was becoming popular. Usually a back and breast plate. The maker would fire a pistol at the armor at around 20 yards. If the armor passed the test it would have a visible dent. Note however, that it was a pistol at distance. Cavalrymen usually placed the muzzle of their pistols into the chest of their opponent before pulling the trigger, and a long barreled musket would probably have no problems piercing that armor at 50 yards. Apparently bullets often had enough power to penetrate the front armor, travel through the body, but then not have enough power to penetrate the back-plate. This meant they bounced, and travelled through the body again!

Wheel lock mechanisms were around by the mid 1500s and made pistols possible. They didn't require a lit match, and were much safer against water. They were, however, very complicated and very expensive. Snap-locks were only marginally simpler, but had the same benefits. Primitive flint-locks, like the miquelet lock were around by the end of the 1500s, but were also fairly rare. The match-lock remained standard in armies until about 1700.

Armor never died out completely, but less and less of it was being worn. Partly because of the effectiveness of the guns, partly because emphasis was shifting toward mobility. You could still find swordsmen in the mid 1600s wearing three-quarter plate. Pikemen continued to wear back-and-breast plate and a helmet, when they could afford it. Some heavy cavalry as late as 1914 still wore cuirasses. Siege armor also continued in use through the 1800s.

Likewise, even in the late 1500s the English could still count on a good number of longbowman. Crossbows were still popular for hunting in some places in the 1600s.

In game terms I believe that black-powder weapons should do a lot of damage, but have a longer reload time (one shot every other round?). Soldiers of the time didn't fire very often during a battle, but they did have tactics to keep up a continuous rate of fire. Also a musket makes an excellent two-handed club. A military musket will be strongly made, so that it's very unlikely to be damaged when used as such.

[Knaight]

If I recall, ancient handguns (Especailly the first muskets) were horrendously UNDERpowered at anything but point-blank range. (However, they were frightening.)

Well bullets were used on armor to show how well it worked, replacing crossbow bolts. This was at close range. One of the big advantages though is that guns make a really loud sound, and horses tend to react to it if they aren't used to it. A cavalry charge works against archers if the horses can move quickly and the numbers are reasonable, some people will be shot, but the charge goes on. Gunfire changes that, the horses panic, order is lost, and the cavalry advantage is null. Between that and training time there is a huge advantage.

[fusilier]

Horses were initially startled by the sound of guns, but they can be trained to ignore it. That's why it became necessary to protect the gunmen with pikes.

[Beleriphon]

For anybody interested 1632 is a pretty good alternative history book that look at the ideas of the 30 years war and the introductin of modern manufacturing techniques for 17th century weapons. Imagine a brazz cannon made with late 20th centure manufacturing precision. Or better yet, a solid steel cannon using the same techniques.

It also examines the ideas of massed pike and gun formations. The gun men were often there to just scare the enemy. It was pike pushes en masse that won battles. That an calvary charges armed with sabres and buff coats.

[fusilier]

It also examines the ideas of massed pike and gun formations. The gun men were often there to just scare the enemy. It was pike pushes en masse that won battles. That an calvary charges armed with sabres and buff coats.

Well, I wouldn't say that the gun men were there just to scare the enemy. By the 1600s battles could be fought without the pikemen actually being engaged. Gradually the ratio of pike-to-gun shifted more and more to the gun. The Spanish formation (tercio) of the mid-16th century had a ratio of 1:1. By 1600 it was closer to 2:1 -- at least in theory. Pikes were cheaper than guns!

However I'm curious to hear more about how gunpowder weapons can be worked into D&D games. Grenades also date back to the 1500s. While used on the battlefield they were probably more useful in sieges.

In "realistic" personal combat, you will probably get one shot out of a period gun or pistol, before having to switch to hand-to-hand. However the same could be said for crossbows. Even some bows might be difficult to use in certain situations.

[sonofzeal]

Personally, what I'm curious about is how Atlatls would fit into all of this. I believe they deliver several times more force than an arrow, over a considerable distance, and are cheaper to make... the tradeoff, of course, is that they're harder to use accurately. Spanish reports from skirmishes with the Aztec suggest that, while a breastplate might be able to stop it, the experience was likely to be fatal anyway.

And you also have to keep in mind the firing rate of the weapons in question, as early firearms took significant lengths of time to reload. I believe the ration was something like... 1812-era rifles could fire one bullet for every five musket rounds, and I'm guessing an archer who's not trying to hit specific targets could get off around five arrows in the time of one musket reload. Not sure what the fire rate on an Atlatl is though, but probably only a bit slower than bow.

[Spiryt]

Personally, what I'm curious about is how Atlatls would fit into all of this. I believe they deliver several times more force than an arrow, over a considerable distance, and are cheaper to make... the tradeoff, of course, is that they're harder to use accurately. Spanish reports from skirmishes with the Aztec suggest that, while a breastplate might be able to stop it, the experience was likely to be fatal anyway.

And you also have to keep in mind the firing rate of the weapons in question, as early firearms took significant lengths of time to reload. I believe the ration was something like... 1812-era rifles could fire one bullet for every five musket rounds, and I'm guessing an archer who's not trying to hit specific targets could get off around five arrows in the time of one musket reload. Not sure what the fire rate on an Atlatl is though, but probably only a bit slower than bow.

Atlatl is interesting weapon, something between bow&arrow and javelin in most regards. "Several times" than arrow depends on what arrow, what dart what bow you mean, but mostly was not true, although there were a lot legends about it.

Check here (http://www.worldatlatl.org/Articles/TakochCD/HOW%20hard%20does%20it%20hit%20revised.pdf), comparison shows that heavy atlatl dart had about 95 J of kinetic energy. While there certainly was posiblity to hurl it harder, good 150 pound bow could have even about 150 - 160 J of it. So sheer energy of atlatl and most arrow is overally comparable. There are of course other things, atlatl dart is longer, have much more momentum, yet is slower...

That's why comparing such things isn't easy.

Although I would say that atlatl darts certainly weren't really good at penetrating hard armours, beacuse from their very nature they must be quite a bit floppy.

As I see that it became another "longbow vs Hulk" discussion, I recommend this (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1321&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=94cd2a8bd4b29c9385fec7c732d09e42)thread.
Quite a lot good info about differences in work of arrows, bolt and bullets, by many guys who know what they're saying. Of course also lot of "I think" arguments, but some of them are good speculations too.

[Ravens_cry]

The Atlatls looks like it would be best used by skirmishers who let fly their weapons, then retreat to protection by more heavily armored allies. That is my opinion anyway.

[Spiryt]

The Atlatls looks like it would be best used by skirmishers who let fly their weapons, then retreat to protection by more heavily armored allies. That is my opinion anyway.

Well, or grab a backup weapon and join the melee.The thing is that this can be said about any ranged weapon...

Up to the era of common rifle bayonets, which were very dangerous weapons, when 'true' melee weapons dissapeared from commons use.

[Knaight]

Atlatl is interesting weapon, something between bow&arrow and javelin in most regards. "Several times" than arrow depends on what arrow, what dart what bow you mean, but mostly was not true, although there were a lot legends about it.

Although I would say that atlatl darts certainly weren't really good at penetrating hard armours, beacuse from their very nature they must be quite a bit floppy.

Then there is the type of Atlatl which uses a heavy rock, basically a staff sling, however most of the time a sling has the advantage over these, that said they are easier to use, and if your going to be flinging at people when you have a significant height advantage(as in standing on a castle wall), the sheer mass of the rock gives it an advantage. They can also be used in tighter formations than the sling, which was the big problem with the sling in the first place, hence its incredibly useful use with troops stationed on steep mountains, including at one point a Jewish temple getting attacked by romans. While you could use a dart in either kind of Atlatl, and for that matter even a sling if your throwing overhand, side hand, or if you have an incredibly long sling overhead.

[sonofzeal]

Atlatl is interesting weapon, something between bow&arrow and javelin in most regards. "Several times" than arrow depends on what arrow, what dart what bow you mean, but mostly was not true, although there were a lot legends about it.

Check here (http://www.worldatlatl.org/Articles/TakochCD/HOW%20hard%20does%20it%20hit%20revised.pdf), comparison shows that heavy atlatl dart had about 95 J of kinetic energy. While there certainly was posiblity to hurl it harder, good 150 pound bow could have even about 150 - 160 J of it. So sheer energy of atlatl and most arrow is overally comparable. There are of course other things, atlatl dart is longer, have much more momentum, yet is slower...

That's why comparing such things isn't easy.

Although I would say that atlatl darts certainly weren't really good at penetrating hard armours, beacuse from their very nature they must be quite a bit floppy.

As I see that it became another "longbow vs Hulk" discussion, I recommend this (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1321&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=94cd2a8bd4b29c9385fec7c732d09e42)thread.
Quite a lot good info about differences in work of arrows, bolt and bullets, by many guys who know what they're saying. Of course also lot of "I think" arguments, but some of them are good speculations too.
I like his analysis, but he's {a} comparing ancient weapons with modern firearms, and {b} not saying anything about effective range. I would have liked to see a blunderbuss or musket at least on the list for reference.

It is kinda fun that the Atlatl beats the arrow in all listed categories, but he doesn't seem to list sources on projectile speed. Also, I think his numbers for Atlatl dart weights are low; Wikipedia says they were 4-9 feet long, and 3-6 ounces sounds REALLY low.

[Gavin Sage]

Early firearms (referring to 14th century and earlier) did not have a great deal of armor-penetrating capability. As has been stated, their main advantage was in ease of use and training. Longbows were the order of the day if you needed to mow down heavily armored infantry or cavalry. Recall, the Battle of Agincourt was fought in 1415, and was won by english longbows, not english muskets. I recall hearing that the term 'bullet-proof' actually originated with medieval armorers firing pistols at their work to demonstrate its effectiveness. I can't source that, however, so take it for what it's worth.

It was not until the 16th and 17th centuries that firearms advanced sufficiently to begin making armor obsolete.

I think it worth pointing out that armor has never stopped being in use and the problem with it has always been the same. Well made plates of metal will stop a bullet. And armor has never ceased to be in use through history. Soldiers storming the beach at Normandy, wearing metal helmets. Heck I've seen a picture of a Russian soldier wearing a very obviously modern breastplate in WWII.

The problem has always been and still is that armor has been prohibitively exspensive. Still the modern military body armor, has steel plates because that's the only thing that has a chance against more powerful rounds.

[Knaight]

That and kevlar, and the ceramic plates used today are still armor anyways.

[BRC]

I actually heard somewhere that it was the invention of firearms that caused the invention of full-plate armor. I think (Note, no real proof of this) that the reason you saw big metal armor used less and less (Compare Crusades to Napoleonic wars for example), was less because armor wouldn't be useful, and more because armor would be expensive. Outfitting an army with firearms would be fairly expensive anyway even without giving them heavy armor. Even during the Medieval period metal armor was likely a good deal rarer than alot of people think it was considering most soldiers were peasant conscript spearmen.

[Spiryt]

I think it worth pointing out that armor has never stopped being in use and the problem with it has always been the same. Well made plates of metal will stop a bullet. And armor has never ceased to be in use through history. Soldiers storming the beach at Normandy, wearing metal helmets. Heck I've seen a picture of a Russian soldier wearing a very obviously modern breastplate in WWII.


Well, not for the direct protection against bullets though, but from the shrapnels mainly. I've seen this Russian soldiers (and some else, but can't recall now) - obviously an experiment that was quited.

Bullet from Mosin rifle will puncture 5mm + of armoured (vehicle) steel, so there no point of plate armor against it.


I like his analysis, but he's {a} comparing ancient weapons with modern firearms, and {b} not saying anything about effective range.

[a] I have no idea why one can't compare ancient weapons with modern firearms. They're something different, but they're all missile weapons, so why not? Especially if they're kinda good comparison.
[b] It's about "how hard does it hit", and "efective range" is way to unprecise term, so I'm glad he didn't even try.




It is kinda fun that the Atlatl beats the arrow in all listed categories, but he doesn't seem to list sources on projectile speed. Also, I think his numbers for Atlatl dart weights are low; Wikipedia says they were 4-9 feet long, and 3-6 ounces sounds REALLY low.

He seems to have quite a lot of sources.
As for weight of darts - in such extremaly brief study it's impossible to list thousands of combinations of bows, arrows and darts that existed.

It's perfectly possible that he used some more "usual" darts, just as he used some obviously quite light bow, shooting 45 g arrows with 60 J of energy, instead of 120g arrows with energy of 150J, as famous welsh longbows and other warbows were capable.

As for darts weights - this test comes from the site of atlatl fans and users, so he knows his stuff good.
If the test is anyhow biased ( why should be?), it's atlatl biased, not other way around. Weights are certainly correct - certainly even if dart is long, it must be rather light to hurl it from atlatl effectively.


I actually heard somewhere that it was the invention of firearms that caused the invention of full-plate armor.

I'm pretty sure it's not true. Especially considering that mid XV century firearms had chance of defeating them, beacuse armor were very hard but brittle - very good at stoping blades of all kinds, but most theories say that high energy bullet could "punch" trough it. Later "round proof" armors were softer and thicker - so they were more capable of dispersing the energy.

Full plate armours generally seem to be just natural evolution of coat of plates (http://lh4.ggpht.com/_yRO7ljt1rlk/Rn8Ggng-TWI/AAAAAAAAALs/X81d347qGW4/CoP3.jpg)- a bunch of steel plates placed on inside of leather or some other material.

Obviously, larger and more precisely "weilder fixed" plates proved to be more effective design. More expensive and harder to make too. Even now if you want a good historical plate, you must pay a lot of money. In XVth century they indeed were very rare.

EDIT: Though, of course, plate leg&arm protections were used before torso&pelvis plate protection was common. It was generally complicated process, definetly not one-track one. Don't know too much details.

[sonofzeal]

[a] I have no idea why one can't compare ancient weapons with modern firearms. They're something different, but they're all missile weapons, so why not? Especially if they're kinda good comparison.
I'm not complaining that there were modern firearms on the list; I'm complaining that there weren't any that were used prior to the 20th century. Nobody that I know argues that bows can compete with guns now, but a lot of people believe bows (and potentially atlatls) would have been highly effective up into the American Civil War, when they started to get rapid-reload rifles.

[b] It's about "how hard does it hit", and "efective range" is way to unprecise term, so I'm glad he didn't even tried.
Not too hard. "Effective Range" would be a combination of two numbers - average maximum distance (get a bunch of guys to shoot as far as they can, measure the results), and "group size" of shots over a nice distance. Group size is easy to measure for guns (mount it on something, fire it 10 times in exactly the same way, see how tight the impact points are to eachother), but might be trickier with bows as you'd need a device to ensure that the draw is the same each time. It's not hard to get group size numbers for guns (of course, brand of ammunition and number of fouling shots matters), and I'd be surprised if nobody's tried to get the same numbers for bows.


He seems to have quite a lot of sources.
The fact that they're all websites, with not a single book or journal between them, speaks against the rigor of his research. To me, it looks like he did a quick google for whatever numbers came up first - not that they're of no value, but he doesn't footnote, his sources aren't scholarly, and every site I checked gave a DNS error. So... I'm glad someone tried the analysis, and it gives a general indication that spears might have had the best damage, bows have the best range, and atlatls are probably a good compromise between the two. Beyond that though, there's not a whole lot to recommend it.

[Spiryt]

I'm not complaining that there were modern firearms on the list; I'm complaining that there weren't any that were used prior to the 20th century. Nobody that I know argues that bows can compete with guns now, but a lot of people believe bows (and potentially atlatls) would have been highly effective up into the American Civil War, when they started to get rapid-reload rifles.

They certainly would be effective, cosnidering that they shoot rapidly and no one was wearing full armor anymore. The question is how effective they could be with tactics of those days, and thus if it would be any sense of using a bow troops, even if somebody could just pull them out of nowhere.

Such speculations are really complicated speculations.


Not too hard. "Effective Range" would be a combination of two numbers - average maximum distance (get a bunch of guys to shoot as far as they can, measure the results), and "group size" of shots over a nice distance. Group size is easy to measure for guns (mount it on something, fire it 10 times in exactly the same way, see how tight the impact points are to eachother), but might be trickier with bows as you'd need a device to ensure that the draw is the same each time. It's not hard to get group size numbers for guns (of course, brand of ammunition and number of fouling shots matters), and I'd be surprised if nobody's tried to get the same numbers for bows.

Not really. It would also mean diffeences between how far really good bowman/atlatlman(?) can shoot, how far a poor one can, how well it penetrates/damages target A from distance A. Again by poor bowman and good one... And distance B and target C. Considering differences between said dart and arrow, I doubt that they would behave the same way in different moments of their flight, for example.

And accuracy on different distance is another thing.
I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. Anyway, you indeed can do a thing like "group size" with modern firearms, but it's completely pointless with bows (atlatls too, I guess). It's all about user - not only draws, but everything. The smallest twitch of hand can change the landing place of arrow completely. And the bow twitches too. And atlatl way of work is solely based on flex of the dart, which would be completely different each time.
Your number is indeed relatively easy to get, but it won't really tell much.

EDIT: Actually, in this article guy states, "for atlatl eff. range is perhaps 50 yards. " What he exaclty mean by this, is again not sure, but out of context I guess it's the distance from which you can hit a game from such distance.



The fact that they're all websites, with not a single book or journal between them, speaks against the rigor of his research. To me, it looks like he did a quick google for whatever numbers came up first - not that they're of no value, but he doesn't footnote, his sources aren't scholarly, and every site I checked gave a DNS error. So... I'm glad someone tried the analysis, and it gives a general indication that spears might have had the best damage, bows have the best range, and atlatls are probably a good compromise between the two. Beyond that though, there's not a whole lot to recommend it.

Well, primitive arrow speed is most certainly corect - I've seen it few times, and 52 m/s seems to be good velocity or arrow from simple bow - higher are not easy to get. And atlatl data they could get from their own experience. Bullets stats are easy to get. Spears are probably most speculative.

Anyway you're of course right, I'm not saying that it's some super good test, hell not. It's not really a issue that you can put in any test like that. But like you said it's a good comparison of few of possibly most important missiles characteristics, put in interesting way.

Beside those what you said, arrows in those examples are certainly fastest projectiles (save guns, of course), while darts are anyway way faster than spears.
And "damage" also depends - roman pillum (they simingly based "heavy spear" on it) most probably overpenetrates the unarmored target, due to it's momentum and density - while potentialy dart or arrow can leave it all in target stoping very rapidly in some denser tissue.

And so on, and so on.

Also, the most of this discussion definetly belongs to "Real weapon questions" now, it seems.

[Kemper Boyd]

Now, another thing. Would you, during a massive combat in a war, prefer to kill your enemies instantly or hurt them very, very badly? I'd say that I would prefer to hurt. When you kill one soldier you are removing one soldier from the battle. When you hurt a soldier badly, you are, at least, removing 3 soldiers from the battle: The guy you just shot and 2 of his friends who are now desperate to find help for their comrade.

Remember that this is only true in the modern age. Pre-19th century warfare didn't roll like that, and for most of the time no one took care of the wounded.