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

[Matthew]

We are getting into an issue of semantics here. During the 19th century, a saber was a sword intended for mounted use -- if for foot use, it was a sword. This was a technical definition that had nothing to do with sword shape, but intended use. As G. pointed out there were "straight" sabers.

While we are on this subject, the straight versus curved debate is as old as the hills. Apparently, Xenophon back in the fourth century BC was advocating curved swords as preferable for use by cavalry. Looks like Wikipedia says that detail can be found in chapter XII of On Horsemanship, but I have a feeling that the word actualy used implies a falcata type sword. If I can find the time I will look it up.

(substitute 'shot' for fire I just can't bring myself to do it it sounds funny)

Heh, heh; consider using "shooting rate" or "slower shooting rate". Still sounds a bit clumsy, but certainly better than rate of shot".

[Yora]

Is an M16 an assault rifle? It doesn't use an "intermediate cartridge" -- although it uses a very small rifle cartridge.

Today almost everyone uses 5.56mm ammunition in rifles or something similar sized. But when assault rifles were introduced in the 40's and 50's, this was a rather small size for a rifle.
The G3 and FAL are the only rifle that come to my mind that use 7.62mm rounds and are still commonly used.

[Psyx]

Curved blades have been popular with cavalry since at least Greek times. Slashing blows are easy to deliver on horseback, especially against the PBI down below.

* European heavy cavalry (cavalry intended to hold ground and continue to fight rather than to hit and run) generally preferred long, straight swords, at least in Europe, including over the centuries the spatha, the arming or riding sword, the longsword, pallsach, the schiavona, the backsword.

Indeed. Heavy cavalry's job in the era was (theoretically) primarily to kill other cavalry, after all. Whereas light cavalry was much more likely to be deployed against infantry and in pursuit.
I understand that the heavy cavalry's preference for straight thrusting blades was so that targets were very much killed or incapacitated *right now*, rather than be given wounding slashes. It was deemed that straight blades were simply a better tool for this, and hence taking down enemy cavalry. I've heard them referred to as 'killing swords'. They were of course still called sabres, as they were employed by horseman.

The only curved blades I'm completely sure had been used on foot are the katana and the dao, and possibly große messer.

And of course the katana was a cavalry weapon, too...

Well, the Brown Bess was a fast loading weapon in it's day, compared to a more accurate rifle. Military discussions about wasting ammo have *typically* given way to faster firing weapons -- perhaps reaching a logical limit with assault rifles?

Kind of amusingly, we've come full-circle here. Despite the Brown Bess being seen as slow by our standards, it was essentially the assault rifle with full-auto of the era in some ways, rather than the bolt-action military rifle which discouraged wasteful use of ammunition. Rifles were available in the era, but muskets were fielded by line infantry instead because they were considerably faster to reload!

There's no point to that statement, it's just an observation that amused me.

[Psyx]

I think the M16A2 was the first time in history that the military adopted a weapon that shot slower than what they were using. That says a lot.

Moving from bows to muskets is the only exception that springs to mind.

Is an M16 an assault rifle?

Very much so. If it's not, then 95% of military rifles aren't assault rifles either, as they use similar ammunition. In the modern era, the M-16 in many ways typifies what an AR is.
As a rule of thumb; if it's 5.56mm NATO or Soviet or thereabouts, it's an Assault Rifle. If it's 7.62mm, then it's a Battle Rifle.

[Matthew]

And of course the katana was a cavalry weapon, too...

Interestingly, and along the same lines, the katana proper may have been a response to a rise in the frequency of foot combat during the sengokujidai period, with many longer and more curved tachi being cut down to serve as such. So, perhaps not a cavalry weapon exactly, but descended from a weapon that was more specialised for mounted combat.

[Spiryt]

Interestingly, and along the same lines, the katana proper may have been a response to a rise in the frequency of foot combat during the sengokujidai period, with many longer and more curved tachi being cut down to serve as such. So, perhaps not a cavalry weapon exactly, but descended from a weapon that was more specialised for mounted combat.

Actually as far as I know, difference between tachi and katana since ~1400 is in method of bearing it, and general mounting. And it would differentiate between mounted and foot use, usually.

It seems that since around 987 general shape and qualities of blades remained relatively unchanged?

[Matthew]

Actually as far as I know, difference between tachi and katana since ~1400 is in method of bearing it, and general mounting. And it would differentiate between mounted and foot use, usually.

That would not really contradict what I am saying; whilst it is true that the way in which the swords are worn is different (and wearing them in different manners can change the terminology) it is apparently not the only difference between the two sword types. As we know, weapon nomenclature is a bit of a nightmare (katana is just "sword" (刀), tachi is literally "long sword"(太刀)), but basically katana as they are familiar to us were preceded by tachi, which were still worn by higher ranking Samurai in the old style and with a tanto, rather than a wakizashi. Of course, if you just wear a katana in the style of a tachi it is usually termed a tachi, but that does not change the fact that there was a shift in the actual characteristics of the blade desired to the extent that many longer tachi were cut down to serve as katana. This has supposedly been attributed to a shift in the style of warfare.

It seems that since around 987 general shape and qualities of blades remained relatively unchanged?

Sure, especially as compared to the variations in medieval Europe, but there was still a differentiation, even if only aesthetic in the end.

[Psyx]

Actually as far as I know, difference between tachi and katana since ~1400 is in method of bearing it, and general mounting. And it would differentiate between mounted and foot use, usually.

It seems that since around 987 general shape and qualities of blades remained relatively unchanged?

There is a trivial difference in the blade. A blade designed to be a taishi is of course drawn earth-to-sky and would -if you stripped off the furniture- display the smith's mark on the outside and be visible. Although the katana is drawn sky-to-earth, the same holds true. Thus, the difference is on which side of the blade and way up the mark is engraved.

The curvature remained essentially unchanged as it ensures the maximum length of blade is used throughout the cutting motion. Although some blades were straighter. However, there were small changes. The blades became shorter for use on foot in pitched battle, and then longer again after the Sengoku period so as to provide superior reach in duels. The length of hilt also varied: Shorter in peace, and longer for more leverage in times of war.

[Mike_G]

I see what you are saying, but may I play devil's advocate for a little while?

Is an M16 an assault rifle? It doesn't use an "intermediate cartridge" -- although it uses a very small rifle cartridge.

I'm not aware (and this may just be ignorance), of any of the AK line of assault rifles having disabled full-auto. Instead I view the M16's removal of a full-auto setting as the outgrowth of the insistence of using rifle ammo rather than accepting a compromise between rate of fire and accuracy. They tried for both, decided it didn't work, and have decided in favor of accuracy over volume of fire. Not sure if this will work out in the long run. It's not actually the first time it has happened: at the end of the American Civil War the regular cavalry were equipped with repeating Spencer carbines, these would be replaced by single-shot trapdoor springfields.

Nevertheless, even if it does turn out to be a good model for the future, there is probably still a "limit" to how far rate of fire can be increased, before it is really just a waste. Whether or not that is full-auto, semi-auto, or three-round burst, is open for debate -- and I would say, the jury is still out. But, assault rifles are probably somewhere near that limit, and this vacillation between full-auto and burst-fire, is most likely an indication that theorists are attempting to determine where the limit is.

I think the jury is back on the full auto rifle for everyone as a bad idea.

The general trend for 500 years was to increase rate of fire. This reached its height in the 1960's when every infantryman had an automatic weapon.

A mere twenty years later, the US switched to a version of the weapon with a burst limiter.

A rifle is a bad platform for full auto. LMGs or SMGs do this well, for different purposes, to provide a long range beaten zone or for CQB when you don't have time to take careful aim. The rifle round is too heavy and the weapon too light so it dances too much when you;'re trying for fire at any kind of range, and the gun is too long for good CQB.

The light, semi automatic, high magazine capacity rifle is about as good an all purpose weapon for the infantryman as you can get. Quick shots semi auto can create an accurate beaten zone better than full auto or a burst, IMO and experience. Carefully aimed slow fire is very accurate and has a chance to hit your enemy at up to 500 yards. Now with the addition of scopes, we are getting real decent hit percentage.

The point of shooting at somebody is to take him out of action. Not scare the birds out of the tree he's hiding behind.

[Psyx]

and the gun is too long for good CQB.

That's because it's not a bullpup...

Although it doesn't matter if it's too long for CQB: The average grunt still has to use it for that purpose, lacking any other weapon.
CWB though is the only situation where auto-fire is useful on a rifle.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Very much so. If it's not, then 95% of military rifles aren't assault rifles either, as they use similar ammunition. In the modern era, the M-16 in many ways typifies what an AR is.
As a rule of thumb; if it's 5.56mm NATO or Soviet or thereabouts, it's an Assault Rifle. If it's 7.62mm, then it's a Battle Rifle.

The exception being, of course, the 7.62 Soviet thereabouts. That is to say, the 7.62x39mm is definitely an intermediate cartridge, fired typically by Assault Rifles.

Yeah, I'm being a bit nit-picky, but somebody's got to do it .

[Construct]

Youtube video on the subject. Take it for what it's worth.

Riposte! Note particularly that the lower end of the cord is tied towards the scabbard throat rather than towards the tip.

To add to the list of historical swords-on-backs we can add Japanese soldiers of WWII. Sorry I don't have a link but there are photographs showing the sword slung across the back to keep it out of the way whilst they held the rifle. There was only a single suspension ring on most army scabbards and use of the regain hook wasn't viable whilst running and crouching and stuff, so if you insisted on carrying the sword on your person it was either rig a new suspension system (fiddly and still likely to be a nuisance) or strap it tightly across your back (idiot proof).

[J.Gellert]

Riposte! Note particularly that the lower end of the cord is tied towards the scabbard throat rather than towards the tip.

ChosonNinja is awesome.

And on the sword-on-the-back subject, I tried it only yesterday and had no trouble drawing the katana that way. Maybe I am just taller than the guy on the previous video?

[Construct]

Sure, especially as compared to the variations in medieval Europe, but there was still a differentiation, even if only aesthetic in the end.

*removes glove, slaps Matthew* I demand satisfaction, sir! Extant Japanese swords tending to be either atrophied Meiji abominations or modern replicas of such gives a false impression of uniformity. Length, curvature, location of curvature, thickness, pointiness, cross-section, composition, etc. all varied over time - and that's without getting into the furniture.

The tachi/katana business is pretty simple: Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away samurai were mounted soldiers. They carried curved swords suspended edge down so they could be drawn easily from horseback. These swords were called tachi. There were also lower-ranking soldiers who carried swords. These soldiers fought on foot and their sword were simply tucked edge-up through a waist-sash. These swords, which were similar to tachi but shorter and with simpler furniture, were called uchigatana. As samurai shifted from being mounted soldiers to foot soldiers to unarmoured layabouts they found the shorter uchigatana to be more convenient than the tachi and accordingly bought new uchigatana or had their old tachi blades cut down and remounted in uchigatana furniture. Of course, calling their new sharp stabby things uchigatana wouldn't do since that was the name the rabble used for their sharp stabby things. Thus, katana. The end. Don't forget to visit the lobby during intermission.

[Yora]

"Katana" seems actually to be a shortened form of the wort "uchigatana". When you combine words and the second word beginns with a hard consonant, it's modified into a soft one. So I'm 99% sure uchigatana is the contraction of "uchi-katana".
However "uchi" appears as part of many words with very different meanings. I assume it's related to "to deafeat" and "negation" in some way.

Edit: Okay, I looked up the Kanji and by itself it means "to strike". So it's a "striking sword", not that this is really a useful information.

[fusilier]

I think the jury is back on the full auto rifle for everyone as a bad idea.

The general trend for 500 years was to increase rate of fire. This reached its height in the 1960's when every infantryman had an automatic weapon.

A mere twenty years later, the US switched to a version of the weapon with a burst limiter.

A rifle is a bad platform for full auto. LMGs or SMGs do this well, for different purposes, to provide a long range beaten zone or for CQB when you don't have time to take careful aim. The rifle round is too heavy and the weapon too light so it dances too much when you;'re trying for fire at any kind of range, and the gun is too long for good CQB.

The light, semi automatic, high magazine capacity rifle is about as good an all purpose weapon for the infantryman as you can get. Quick shots semi auto can create an accurate beaten zone better than full auto or a burst, IMO and experience. Carefully aimed slow fire is very accurate and has a chance to hit your enemy at up to 500 yards. Now with the addition of scopes, we are getting real decent hit percentage.

The point of shooting at somebody is to take him out of action. Not scare the birds out of the tree he's hiding behind.

The first real "assault rifle" was the German MP-43 later renamed Sturmgewehr. It was the result of years of experimenting with an intermediate round, the 7.92mm Kurz. The AK-47 also used an intermediate round. The british developed a 7mm intermediate round -- but the US insisted upon using a full rifle round, which became the 7.62mm NATO. They went to a really small rifle round for the M16, but proportionally it's a rifle cartridge and not an intermediate cartridge.

When I asked whether or not the M16 was an assault rifle, that was an entirely serious question. A submachinegun is defined by pistol ammo -- likewise, originally, an assault rifle was defined by the use of "intermediate" cartridges. Why exactly, the term "assault rifle" was applied to a series of full-auto rifles isn't entirely clear to me, but it makes it very difficult to make a quick distinction between what are in essence two different weapons.

I agree with you, when you say a full-auto rifle is a bad idea -- the FG42 was an example that failed in this regard. Of course, that's why intermediate cartridges were used in the first place -- a fact that seemed to have been ignored by American weapon designers.

Calling the M16, the M14 or the AK-47 fundamentally the same kind of gun is misleading. They are, theoretically, designed to fill similar roles, but there are significant design approach differences. Frustratingly, one must distinguish between an "assault rifle" and an "assault rifle". ;-)

There are rumors of the US going to an intermediate 6.8mm round, although that may just be a chimera as they claim that increases in the power of propellant, allow for a smaller cartridge case without a decrease in muzzle velocity.

[Eorran]

What US forces typically use the M4 vs the M16? Is there a move towards carbines in other NATO forces, or in former Soviet forces?

What's the advantage of a carbine such as the M4 over an SMG like the MP-5? I imagine uniformity of ammo is nice, but it seems like the carbine would have no advantage over an assault rifle except in CQB.

[Matthew]

*removes glove, slaps Matthew* I demand satisfaction, sir! Extant Japanese swords tending to be either atrophied Meiji abominations or modern replicas of such gives a false impression of uniformity. Length, curvature, location of curvature, thickness, pointiness, cross-section, composition, etc. all varied over time - and that's without getting into the furniture.

Heh, heh. I knew that would get somebody's goat.

I did actually get the opportunity to view quite a few Sengokujidai period katana in the National Museum of Japan and in a smaller sword museum near Nagoya that I think continues to produce katana (this was about six years ago and my memory of the exact circumstances is getting a bit vague), and I can attest that you could certainly tell the difference between the tachi and katana (the way they were displayed not withstanding of course!). The ones in the national museum were detached from their hilt furniture, so that the blades could be fully displayed, allowing further observation of the differences between individual blades (whether katana or tachi).

The tachi/katana business is pretty simple: Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away samurai were mounted soldiers. They carried curved swords suspended edge down so they could be drawn easily from horseback. These swords were called tachi. There were also lower-ranking soldiers who carried swords. These soldiers fought on foot and their sword were simply tucked edge-up through a waist-sash. These swords, which were similar to tachi but shorter and with simpler furniture, were called uchigatana. As samurai shifted from being mounted soldiers to foot soldiers to unarmoured layabouts they found the shorter uchigatana to be more convenient than the tachi and accordingly bought new uchigatana or had their old tachi blades cut down and remounted in uchigatana furniture. Of course, calling their new sharp stabby things uchigatana wouldn't do since that was the name the rabble used for their sharp stabby things. Thus, katana. The end. Don't forget to visit the lobby during intermission.

That pretty much accords with my understanding, and now to the lobby for an ice cream... it costs how much!?

[Psyx]

Frustratingly, one must distinguish between an "assault rifle" and an "assault rifle". ;-)

Err... not really. As stated earlier: Heavy calibre assault rifles using full-sized 7.62mm rounds are commonly called Battle Rifles.

Is there a move towards carbines in other NATO forces, or in former Soviet forces?

Most other NATO nations don't need carbines because they have been using bullpup designs for years, which give the barrel-length and accuracy of a full-length carbine, with the compactness of a carbine.
It's America that is being conservative and is behind the times. Welcome to the 21st century guys.

Some bullpups have carbine versions where the barrel terminates at the front of the front grip, but these are not normally used by infantry, and are weapons for vehicle crews et cetera. Personally, I don't like my hand that near the muzzle!

What's the advantage of a carbine such as the M4 over an SMG like the MP-5? I imagine uniformity of ammo is nice, but it seems like the carbine would have no advantage over an assault rifle except in CQB.

You can reliably hit something more than 100m away.
You can reliably get a one-shot stop at more than 50m away
You can reliably defeat soft cover and light armour. Both of which any target in a protracted firefight WILL be using.
You can defeat body armour, which is increasingly common.
You can fit decent night vision optics without utterly destroying the balance.

SMGs offer *nothing* to regular infantry equipped with decent ARs. They trade range, penetration and stopping power for more accurate autofire (which nobody actually uses outside of Hollywood), lighter ammunition (which is much less effective) and compactness (which is moot 95% of the time). SMGs are for police, paramilitary and special forces to conduct urban warfare and police operations with, and don't really have a place in the infantryman's armoury.

Additionally: MP5s are NOT a weapon for infantry or the field. They need a lot of care and don't like dirt. They are fine for SF urban and police operations, but not the battlefield.

Carbines have typically been used for non-infantry, who might need a compact weapon in extreme circumstances: Artillery and vehicle crews and the like. And for paratroops, of course.
Carbines started looking like a good idea for infantry as the range of confrontation dropped to around 200m in modern warfare. Someone decided that being able to slot someone reliably at 600m was no longer required, based on low-intensity urban combat of recent years. This turns out to have been a dumb idea.

[Myth]

Riposte! Note particularly that the lower end of the cord is tied towards the scabbard throat rather than towards the tip.

To add to the list of historical swords-on-backs we can add Japanese soldiers of WWII. Sorry I don't have a link but there are photographs showing the sword slung across the back to keep it out of the way whilst they held the rifle. There was only a single suspension ring on most army scabbards and use of the regain hook wasn't viable whilst running and crouching and stuff, so if you insisted on carrying the sword on your person it was either rig a new suspension system (fiddly and still likely to be a nuisance) or strap it tightly across your back (idiot proof).

ChosonNinja is awesome.

And on the sword-on-the-back subject, I tried it only yesterday and had no trouble drawing the katana that way. Maybe I am just taller than the guy on the previous video?

You guys aren't seriously admiring this arseclown are you Because he's regarded as a poser and a joke in the martial arts circles. Both WMA and EMA.

[Yora]

There are rumors of the US going to an intermediate 6.8mm round, although that may just be a chimera as they claim that increases in the power of propellant, allow for a smaller cartridge case without a decrease in muzzle velocity.

This one?
...

[Mike_G]

Err... not really. As stated earlier: Heavy calibre assault rifles using full-sized 7.62mm rounds are commonly called Battle Rifles.




Most other NATO nations don't need carbines because they have been using bullpup designs for years, which give the barrel-length and accuracy of a full-length carbine, with the compactness of a carbine.
It's America that is being conservative and is behind the times. Welcome to the 21st century guys.

Some bullpups have carbine versions where the barrel terminates at the front of the front grip, but these are not normally used by infantry, and are weapons for vehicle crews et cetera. Personally, I don't like my hand that near the muzzle!




You can reliably hit something more than 100m away.
You can reliably get a one-shot stop at more than 50m away
You can reliably defeat soft cover and light armour. Both of which any target in a protracted firefight WILL be using.
You can defeat body armour, which is increasingly common.
You can fit decent night vision optics without utterly destroying the balance.

SMGs offer *nothing* to regular infantry equipped with decent ARs. They trade range, penetration and stopping power for more accurate autofire (which nobody actually uses outside of Hollywood), lighter ammunition (which is much less effective) and compactness (which is moot 95% of the time). SMGs are for police, paramilitary and special forces to conduct urban warfare and police operations with, and don't really have a place in the infantryman's armoury.

Additionally: MP5s are NOT a weapon for infantry or the field. They need a lot of care and don't like dirt. They are fine for SF urban and police operations, but not the battlefield.

Carbines have typically been used for non-infantry, who might need a compact weapon in extreme circumstances: Artillery and vehicle crews and the like. And for paratroops, of course.
Carbines started looking like a good idea for infantry as the range of confrontation dropped to around 200m in modern warfare. Someone decided that being able to slot someone reliably at 600m was no longer required, based on low-intensity urban combat of recent years. This turns out to have been a dumb idea.

Beat me to it.

Yeah, what he said.

[Soylent Dave]

Is there a move towards carbines in other NATO forces, or in former Soviet forces?

Some British frontline forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have started using the carbine L85 (L22) - I think this has more to do with the vehicles they're using (i.e. Landrovers & Snatches), where even the bullpup L85 takes up a bit too much space.

It's worth noting that Military Police (who are trained in the use & care of MP5s) were issued L22s; which also tallies with everything Psyx was saying about carbines being a generally better option than SMGs.

[Xuc Xac]

As we know, weapon nomenclature is a bit of a nightmare (katana is just "sword" (刀), tachi is literally "long sword"(太刀))

Almost every term referring to a specific kind of sword just means "sword" in the language that term was taken from.

[Psyx]

It's worth noting that Military Police (who are trained in the use & care of MP5s) were issued L22s; which also tallies with everything Psyx was saying about carbines being a generally better option than SMGs.

And it says a lot for a weapon's reliability in-field that a L85 variant is issued instead...

[Matthew]

Almost every term referring to a specific kind of sword just means "sword" in the language that term was taken from.

Let us just say that is not news to me (but also that you are overstating the case somewhat).

[Theodoric]

Let us just say that is not news to me (but also that you are overstating the case somewhat).

Indeed. Some mean 'knife' instead.

[J.Gellert]

It doesn't really mean much, because, for example, in Greek, Spathi, Spatha, Xiphos, Makhaira, and so on, all mean "sword". And yet they are still used to denote different objects to someone who cares, apparently.

From there, it gets more confusing if you want to translate "katana" or "saber". It's always interesting reading what translators come up with. Sometimes they just give up. I mean, you can get away with calling the katana "samurai's sword" but what are you going to call a morningstar? A guisarme?

[Kalaska'Agathas]

This one?
...

Oh dear I hope not. I'm a proponent of a Medium Velocity, Low Drag bullet myself, similar to the 6.5x39mm. It seems to me to give optimal trajectory, range, and energy, but of course I am no expert.

[fusilier]

Err... not really. As stated earlier: Heavy calibre assault rifles using full-sized 7.62mm rounds are commonly called Battle Rifles.

Ooh, I missed that earlier. I like the term "Battle Rifle" -- unfortunately, it doesn't stop people from lumping FN-FALs, M16s and AK-47 together by referring to all of them as "assault rifles", but at least it provides some terminology to make a distinction.