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

[Gorbash Kazdar]

Comrade Gorby: This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

The original thread was started by Eric the Mad, and included contributions from many posters for both questions and answers. Once that thread hit critical mass, Version II began, followed by Version III. This thread is Version IV.

A few rules for this thread:

• This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
• Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasability. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and phsyics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it. :)
• Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
• No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)
• No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.

With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!

[jdarksun]

How does a person use a chain-based weapon effectively? From a street brawler with a length of chain from Home Depot to a "ninja" using a "kusara kama" / "shogei" (in quotes because I don't think real ninja ever used weapons like that)?

Sometimes in movies you see people thrasing about with various weapons on a length of chain (like the japanese schoolgirl wielded at the end of the battle with the Crazy 88s from Kill Bill Vol. 1); is there real-world basis of this, or is it totally fiction?

Do you have to keep it spinning? Is a large amount of area required to use it effectively? How would being hit with a thing effect the human body (no need to be graphic, but would it tend to be blunt force trauma or what)?

[Beleriphon]

I can answer the Home Depot aspect. The best way to use a length of chain is wrap it around your fist and forearm to provide weighted blows. You could use it to swing at somebody, but its not very effective given that it isn't designed or weighted to do so.

Also, since chains tend to be large, heavy and not very sharp I'd suggest that they cause blunt force trauma as opposed to lacerations.

[ScritchyPants]

I can answer the Home Depot aspect. The best way to use a length of chain is wrap it around your fist and forearm to provide weighted blows. You could use it to swing at somebody, but its not very effective given that it isn't designed or weighted to do so.

Also, since chains tend to be large, heavy and not very sharp I'd suggest that they cause blunt force trauma as opposed to lacerations.

Heavy guage chains can be used as a flail.

The advantage is that it's hard to block a chain weapon. Things like a cahin type morning star or flail will wrap over the top of a sheild and have a good chance of hitting and hurting anyway.

Also, a chain gives you reach -- you can strike farther away, and even draw it in closer for some designs.

The injury is usually blunt force trauma, but a weighted end with spikes or flanges can cause penetration injuries as well.

[Renloth]

I would agree that it would be hard to block a chain.

I think its main advantages are fluidity and reach. A chain can be spun to increase momentum and blocking a section of the chain does not block as effectivly as it would a solid weapon, allowing a continued strike using the block as a pivot point.

Other than that, one could wrap their arm in chain to both block incoming blows more effectivly than their arm alone, and for more foce in a strike.

[Darkie]

The key about the "kusara kama" is that there's a handle...

From the forms of some of my seniors, it looks like you use it both ways. Not too sure though, as I only trained with kamas, and always thought twirling them around me wouldn't be great to start training with :P

[Ryujin]

Heavy guage chains can be used as a flail.

The advantage is that it's hard to block a chain weapon. Things like a cahin type morning star or flail will wrap over the top of a sheild and have a good chance of hitting and hurting anyway.

Also, a chain gives you reach -- you can strike farther away, and even draw it in closer for some designs.

Adding to that, the shock of impact doesn't end up being absorbed by your arm.

[Wehrkind]

It doesn't apply to D20 so much (or DOES IT?) but does anyone have a link to historic pictures or pictures of actual weapons that were fitted with a pommel spike? I am thinking two handed swords in particular. I know I have seen them before, but a friend of mine has my Talhoffer manual so I can't check that, and I can't think of any easy to find citations.

Thanks!

[Kishkumen]

How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

[draconic_swine]

How does a person use a chain-based weapon effectively? From a street brawler with a length of chain from Home Depot to a "ninja" using a "kusara kama" / "shogei" (in quotes because I don't think real ninja ever used weapons like that)?

Sometimes in movies you see people thrasing about with various weapons on a length of chain (like the japanese schoolgirl wielded at the end of the battle with the Crazy 88s from Kill Bill Vol. 1); is there real-world basis of this, or is it totally fiction?

Do you have to keep it spinning? Is a large amount of area required to use it effectively? How would being hit with a thing effect the human body (no need to be graphic, but would it tend to be blunt force trauma or what)?

I think I can answer ththis. As far as I know, the kama was never swung about on the end of a chain, nor was it a "reach" weapon in the D&D sense. This is mainly due to the fact that the chain was attack to the haft just below the blade, not at the butt-end. You held the kama in one hand, attacking normally, and the chain in the other hand, using it to parry, disarm, or what have you.

How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

This won't be a big help, as I've never used a sling before and can't really give you any hands-on pointers, but I do know that the "swinging the sling around in a circle to build momentum before releasing" is a myth. Real slingers just whip it forward, as trying to hit anything after you've been swinging it around is, as you have discovered, all but impossible.

[Sundog]

I don't know about methodology, but I do know that the sling was the most respected hand-held projectile weapon of the ancient world - primarily due to it's accuracy.

[silentvengeance]

Most uses for a chain have been given, but the last one is useing it to disarm, for example wrapping the opponents weapon in the chain and yanking to disarmed, workes well with edged weapons because you wont get cut, you can also use a weighted chain to trip ect.
Peace
Silentvengeance

[Scorpina]

The weapons table would have us believe that swords are more effective, overall, than any other kind of weapon.

True? False?

[Maclav]

How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?

http://www.slinging.org/

and

http://www.slinging.org/21.html

Second link shows video of a few slinging techniques.

[Raum]

The weapons table would have us believe that swords are more effective, overall, than any other kind of weapon.

True? False?

If you're referring to a game's weapon damage table, most, if not all, will admit they are unrealistic at best. Remember, unless you're playing a simulation, game mechanics are there for playability, variety, and balance. Not realism. :)

As for whether swords are most effective, that will depend on the situation. What is significant about swords is the mystique / legend / etc built around them. It is a weapon purely for killing other humans, so only the rich could afford swords until fairly recently. This made swords a symbol of status as much as anything else.

[Dervag]

How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

The short answer, I think, is "Keep practicing for 5-10 years, then see how much your accuracy improves."

The human brain comes with a built-in ballistics computer evolved for throwing. Our simian ancestors made an entire way of life out of heaving rocks and pointy sticks at their enemies. So human being are quite good at assessing the trajectory of an object that gets all its oomph from a linear boost at the beginning of its flight path. This extends to throwing things, archery, and to firearms.

Slings, on the other hand, are much finickier because (as you saw) it takes split-second precision to send it in the direction you want it to go. A complete amateur slinger will be much much less accurate than a complete amateur bowman (if nothing else, the bowman is likely to get the arrow within ten to twenty degrees of the target point- the slinger isn't). But once you've been using that sling to chuck pebbles at stuff every day for months or years at a time, releasing the sling at the right moment becomes second nature.

[Darkie]

It is a weapon purely for killing other humans, so only the rich could afford swords until fairly recently. This made swords a symbol of status as much as anything else.

Well, nowadays, a good sword costs more than a good gun ;)

[Maclav]

The short answer, I think, is "Keep practicing for 5-10 years, then see how much your accuracy improves."

Slings are actually very easy to get reasonably accurate, Much like pitching a baseball. After a few minutes of fumbling around figuring out the technique, it feels very much like throwing a ball. The sling itself gives you more velocity. after a bit of pratice most people with any co-ordination should be able to do decent groupings at 25-50 yards.

[Mr Croup]

How does a person use a chain-based weapon effectively? From a street brawler with a length of chain from Home Depot to a "ninja" using a "kusara kama" / "shogei" (in quotes because I don't think real ninja ever used weapons like that)?

Sometimes in movies you see people thrasing about with various weapons on a length of chain (like the japanese schoolgirl wielded at the end of the battle with the Crazy 88s from Kill Bill Vol. 1); is there real-world basis of this, or is it totally fiction?

Do you have to keep it spinning? Is a large amount of area required to use it effectively? How would being hit with a thing effect the human body (no need to be graphic, but would it tend to be blunt force trauma or what)?

Chain weapons were definitely used in many different forms. Probably the best the use of a "Home Depot" variety (ie a simple length of chain) would in fact be to simply wrap your fist and forearm in it to add weight to blows. However, a heavy chain can be used rather well as a simple flail at a short length (2-3 feet).

Most of my experience with a chain weapon is with chain whips of Chinese design, as used in wushu. Skilled individuals can get these things moving incredibly fast, and can strike very accurately with them. Chain whips consist of a handle at one end, several small bar like segments linked together, and either a weight or spike at the striking end. The chain whip is a very tricky weapon to use, as there is a high chance of striking yourself or becoming entangled. Many techniques are reliant on making quick stirkes from a coiled set up, either by having the length of chain compressed in your hand, or by having the sections held in a ready position by being wrapped around parts of the body in a manner in which they can quickly be released.

The type of attack you are making is what determines on whether you need more space and whether or not you have to keep the chain moving. Often, a small length of the chain would be kept moving, with the majority of the length held in ready, using the momentum of the smaller section to extend the weapon fully. In most applications, you would need more room to use it effectively than say a small sword though.

The type of damage done by a chain whip is generally bludgeoning and ensnaring. They are rather effective at delivering blows that could break bones, and when someone has been ensnared, tripping, disarming, or breaking/dislocating bones is relatively easy.

[silentvengeance]

If you had three men, equally skilled, armed with a quarter staff, an axe and a sword,
the quarter staff would defeat the sword
the sword would defeat the axe
and the axe would defeat the quarter staff.
Put simply, the sword is a compartivly easy weapon to "master". weapons like quarter staffs are much hard to use effectivly, but the end result is much more effective.
Weapons like axes come with a "taint" and were considered a peasants weapon, obviously this bias continues to this day, the hand axe with commonly associated barbarians and other "wild" folk
Peace
Silentvengeance

[Mr Croup]

The weapons table would have us believe that swords are more effective, overall, than any other kind of weapon.

True? False?

Neither. The fact of the matter that it's just too subjective. Beyond that, there are too many variables. What type of sword? Versus what type of other weapon? What are skill levels of the combatants? What specific styles and techniques are they using? What is the physical condition of the combatants? What of the weapons?

It's just not something that can be quantified.

[Raum]

If you had three men, equally skilled, armed with a quarter staff, an axe and a sword,
the quarter staff would defeat the sword
the sword would defeat the axe
and the axe would defeat the quarter staff.

Do you have any evidence for this? And what type of armor, terrain, and surroundings are we assuming? Is this a solo duel, small group, or line of battle? On foot or mounted?

I think it's a stretch to say X would defeat Y. Until all the variables are specified you can't know which weapon will be able to use its strengths and which may be hindered.

For example, you put the staff man vs the swordsman in a duel inside a hallway and my money is on the swordsman. Add plate armor and it's even more onesided.

Weapon strengths and weaknesses are situational.

[Wehrkind]

I have a hard time believing that a quarterstaff would defeat a sword in most situations, being that it was never considered a "real" weapon, but rather one that would do if you didn't have the cash or ability to carry a sword. That is not to say it is not a good weapon, it is very versatile, but I see no reason that it is more effective than a sword. It if were, swords would not be the dominant weapon in most cultures. Even in cultures where the sword was not dominant, it was usually the axe, spear or bow that was considered "best." In fact I can not think of any cultures where a staff was considered a weapon of choice without at least a pointy end.

[ScritchyPants]

How the dickens does anyone manage to hit something with a sling?
Ten years ago I made a sling (two straps of leather, one goes around a finger and the other is released) and for the life of me could never get the stone to fly in the same direction twice.

If I swung it overhead in a horizontal circle and released the stone it would go anywhere in a 90° arc in front of me.

If I swung it on the side in an underhanded vertical circle the stone would be easier to aim but would either arc up at a 45° angle and get launched like Explorer 1 or would bounce off the ground ten feet in front of me.

Even practicing for a couple hours at a time, I was never able to see any improvement in accuracy.

The only time I've ever hit anything was when a friend was too close and got whipped in the back of the neck with the released strap.

It's like getting to Carnegie Hall -- PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE. Good sligers practived daily, like good archers. You had to do it to have any chance of success.

As some one already mentioned, you only really use a half circle swing or there-abouts. You kind of snap it around and let go, almost like a whip -- it's all in the wrist.

[ScritchyPants]

Neither. The fact of the matter that it's just too subjective. Beyond that, there are too many variables. What type of sword? Versus what type of other weapon? What are skill levels of the combatants? What specific styles and techniques are they using? What is the physical condition of the combatants? What of the weapons?

It's just not something that can be quantified.

And it depends upon to enemy's armor, etc., as well.

For example, the European broadsword was effective in European battles with heavy cavalry and heavy armor, but relatively slow and cumbersome against the Saracens with their lighter and faster scimitars.

It was a product of their environments.

[Darkie]

It if were, swords would not be the dominant weapon in most cultures.

They're not. At least not in 'most cultures'.

The North American civilizations didn't (although that may be a symptom of availablity), but neither did the Asian cultures (Japan or China, at least), and it wasn't very widespread in Europe either (as 'dominant weapons').

[endoperez]

A sword can parry, although shields were preferred for that, and kill via slashes, or thrusts. A sword (or some swords, at least) can be used in a formation, and is easy to carry as a back-up weapon.

A quarterstaff is a good defensive weapon, but won't penetrate armor, and won't slash through flesh and bone. It is hard to kill with a quarterstaff, at least in a hurry.

An axe is deadly, but I think it is poor as a defensive weapon.

Good sword is also much harder to do than a good staff or a good axe. Swords are made from metal, which has to be balanced, tempered, edges have to cut but be as resistant to chipping a possible, handle must fit the hand and offer as good leverage as possible, etc, and a failure at any one point means that the sword is of inferior quality, often worthless. The metal can be re-used, but not infinitely, and time has always been a very hard resource to come by. The few smiths who had enough metal, guidance and time to become good swordsmiths were very rare, much rarer than the carpenters who could shape wood exceptionally well. There are lots of reasons for swords being good weapons and the stuff of myths.

However, a sword is inferior to a more specialized weapon in almost every situation that could be imagined.

[Wehrkind]

They're not. At least not in 'most cultures'.

The North American civilizations didn't (although that may be a symptom of availablity), but neither did the Asian cultures (Japan or China, at least), and it wasn't very widespread in Europe either (as 'dominant weapons').

I don't know if you are agreeing with me or not, but I suspect not.

In North America, availability was an obvious issue. Not having metal is a serious impediment to sword use, though the Aztecs were noted to have made "swords" from lining wood with obsidian or bits of animal tooth. It is also worth noting they didn't use quarter staves either, despite it being well within their technological level. Rather they used clubs, hatchets made from stone, and spears with stone or bone heads in melee.

In Japan the sword was considered a requirement for the upper classes, as well as bow and spear use. The quarter staff was again relegated to those too poor to own anything better. The same in China, where there is a plethora of weapons to choose from, most some version or spear or pole arm, or sword.

Swords were largely the prefered weapon in most of Europe from Greek times until extremely protective armor made them less useful to the upper classes, for both personal combat and field battles. That is not to say the spear, lance, axe and other melee weapons were not used, but the sword was considered superior as a general weapon. There is a reason people put up with the expense of a sword compared to a spear or axe. Even if you don't want to call it "dominant" in Europe, it certainly was not considered lesser than the staff. You also did not see people dueling with your mighty quarterstaff instead of a rapier or the like.

The only metal using culture I can think of who did not make at least extensive use of the sword in one form or another would be the Zulu and other african tribes, though their famed assegi was a lot more like a long handled sword than a staff.

[Darkie]

Perhaps I'm thinking of mass warfare more - swords were, if we are speaking 'majority', secondary weapons. The much vaunted katanas in Japan were secondary weapons - samurai were archers first, horsemen second, and swordsmen last.

I'm aware of the 'saw' type of club the Aztecs used - but I wouldn't consider those swords. They certainly weren't even bladed.

I disagree with your assessment of European warfare, though I will be the first to admit I have no formal education in the area. The majority of European warfare seems dominated by polearms, not swords.

I'd started researching and typing up paragraphs, but grew tired/bored and it's late, and deleted it rather than have a half-finished history essay.

My point is that historically, the idea summed up in the following statement:
"Swords were the dominant weapon in most cultures"
is incorrect.
Rather, polearms, followed by ranged weapons, were the dominant weapons in warfare. There were certainly periods where a culture used swords quite a bit, but to name a few examples, Greece, China, Japan, India, Early Rome, the Macedonians and pre-Roman conquest Germanic peoples did not.

In the Classical period, polearms dominated (as swordsmithing was still an emerging art), but in the middle ages, while Knights dominated with lances and swords, they were vastly outnumbered by infantry who primarily had polearms. Even as ranged weapons began to dominate, fielding pikemen was still commonly done.

Swords were certainly common, but they hardly 'dominated'. Looking at the notable militaries in the ancient world, (the Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Chinese, Macedonians, Romans, Indians, Gandharas, and Qins, Xiongnu.), the only class of weapons that truely stand out in proliferation are polearms.

Medieval warfare was the time when swords truely became notable, but that was also overshadowed by developments in armor and cavalry and ranged weapons. In this period also, due to anti-cavalry requirements, infantry (always the most numerous) primarily carried polearms.

I contest the notion that swords domainated warfare - rather, polearms did. Looking at cataphracts, janissaries, knights, and samurai (for example) support that notion.

Swords certainly are dominant in that they have the most influence , as well as being the most prominent. In terms of culture. However, in warfare, they were not.

Perhaps we're looking at the statement in different contexts.

[Beleriphon]

Swords certainly are dominant in that they have the most influence , as well as being the most prominent. In terms of culture. However, in warfare, they were not.

Perhaps we're looking at the statement in different contexts.

I think thats the problem. Swords have been designed and created by nearly every culture in the world that used any significant amount of metal working. Exceptions include African tribes, the Australian Aboriginies, and the native tribes of North America, as well as a variety of South American cultures. In South America this is as much a function of not have good iron to work with as anything else. Generally speaking if a culture progressed to the Bronze age they had swords, even if they didn't need them or were wholely impractical.