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

[The Reverend]

Domesticated rhinoceros and elephants with a fair amount of armor in formation charging, Also war wagons breaking up formations. Heck WarBulls, through bred large bulls armored and ridden into combat. Whose going to try and stand against the 100 tons of angry cow charging the phalanx flank. But frankly I think the real tool that would come more to the forefront would be assassins and rogues. A lot more setting fires in the camps, opening the city gates, poisoning provisions, poisoning the relationships within a cities ruling class, etc. You might get an entire class of mercenary "Social Ninja" who disrupts society, spreads gossips, starts feuds, and generally weakens the social structure.

hmm battlefield traps should be used as often as possible hidden pits, oil soaked ground, or heck even just digging closely placed 2 1/2 foot deep "knee snapper" holes across a section of the field of battle would badly discourage mass formations and channel movement. Hide some leave some obvious.
You have to assume society has been without missile weapons forever so has had thousands of years to get used to it.

[Spiryt]

As I had said, I think it can vary greatly, so it's hard to give definite answers.

One can guess there's a lot of leverage working in good swing, but on the other hand putting your body behind spear thrust seem way more natural....

So I would guess there's too much variable here for definite answer, with the way weapons can be swung with different body rotations etc.

Would actually need someone good at physics and body mechanics to answer that one.

[Eldan]

I'd imagine aircraft, even slow ones like zeppelins, become extremely interesting without ranged weapons. Think about it:

How do you shoot down aircraft without ranged weapons?

On the other hand, a zeppelin can still drop stones. Very, very large stones.

There's your siege weapon, people.

[gkathellar]

What I meant was: does the armor piercing only stem from the concentration of force on one point, i.e. the weapon being somewhat pointy at the part used to attack (horseman's pick's beak, sword's point, halberd's spike etc.) and the form of attack doesn't matter (sword thrusts when using the point, pick is swung when using the point etc.)? Or does a thrusting motion aid the penetration as opposed to a swinging motion (which generally has more power behind it)?

No, in the case of most weapons — armor-piercing relies on generating a large amount of force at a relatively small point, and the exact nature of a swing or strike does a great deal to define how much forces you can put into a blow.

Picks, hammers and axes obviously generate more force with swinging blows because of weight distribution and momentum, and that adds onto the concentration of energy that comes from a relatively small point of impact. Taking the head off of a pick and stabbing at someone with it would not penetrate armor with much effectiveness. So in that case: no, it really comes from both.

With regards to swords and polearms, swinging motions do not generally have more power behind them. Even with a one-handed sword, it can (generally, with numerous exceptions) be far easier to put your body's force behind a thrust than a swing. This is for two reasons. Firstly, a thrust can include a large motion while remaining quick and effective, while large chops are inefficient and predictable. Secondly, a well-performed thrust places your entire body mass behind the movement. A boxing metaphor: think of the difference between a haymaker (busy, slow, roundabout and basically dependent on shoulder strength) and a straight (dynamic, quick, and basically dependent on foot, leg, hip and abdominal strength).

[Spiryt]

A boxing metaphor: think of the difference between a haymaker (busy, slow, roundabout and basically dependent on shoulder strength) and a straight (dynamic, quick, and basically dependent on foot, leg, hip and abdominal strength).

That obviously depends by how one defines "haymaker" then, but you can obviously put a lot of foot, hip and torso behind hail mary, with a very wide movement, making it clumsy and rondabout indeed, but extremely powerful on the other hand.

Spoiler

Show

So, like mentioned, you can have hell of a differnet movements falling between two "basic" swing and thrust.

The difference between sword and something like axe in putting a good blow would be more in balance and harmonics when striking the target.

[gkathellar]

That obviously depends by how one defines "haymaker" then, but you can obviously put a lot of foot, hip and torso behind hail mary, with a very wide movement, making it clumsy and rondabout indeed, but extremely powerful on the other hand.

Spoiler

Show

My definitions may be off here, but the punch Fedor throws there looks like a straight to me. He extends further into it than a boxer would because he's looking to use it as a takedown entry, but that punch is by no means wide or circular enough to be classed as a haymaker.

So, like mentioned, you can have hell of a differnet movements falling between two "basic" swing and thrust.

The difference between sword and something like axe in putting a good blow would be more in balance and harmonics when striking the target.

As I said, I'm generalizing broadly, and there are numerous exceptions. (Nor am I saying "thrusts are better and do more damage than cuts," I'm simply noting that, with a spear or sword, thrusts tend to generate more raw energy that can be focused at a single point for armor-piercing purposes.)

[Spiryt]

I don't really feel knowledgeable here, but I'm pretty sure arm is going way too far away to the right from the torso for it to be classified as a classical cross.




Straight should be.... well straight, and this indeed looks like some hybrid between cross and haymaker.

It's slower than proper cross from obvious reasons, but a lot of rotational movement to the left gives it power.

Of course, one can just classify "haymaker" as a sloppy punch without any method into it, and then it indeed can be just weak and all, but that's semantics.

[fusilier]

What I meant was: does the armor piercing only stem from the concentration of force on one point, i.e. the weapon being somewhat pointy at the part used to attack (horseman's pick's beak, sword's point, halberd's spike etc.) and the form of attack doesn't matter (sword thrusts when using the point, pick is swung when using the point etc.)? Or does a thrusting motion aid the penetration as opposed to a swinging motion (which generally has more power behind it)?

I believe that a swinging motion generally has more power behind it. [As an aside, in GURPS swinging is more powerful than thrusting]. So the form factor has a lot to do with armor penetration. However, a sword thrust is *quick* compared to a swing. It also requires that the sword and arm be held in such a way that it is stiff.

However, the swinging motion used with a weapon, and that used with a fist are rather different. [In GURPS all punches are based on thrust, never swing]. A hook (haymaker?) is typically not as a powerful as straight punch (cross?), but I don't think you would swing a sword with a hook like motion at your opponent -- although I admit that my experience is very limited. So if the weapon is small and light (like a dagger), then perhaps a thrusting motion delivers as much force as a swinging motion. A dagger can be wielded in an "over-hand" fashion, which would make attacking with it a downward swinging motion. I don't know if there are any studies showing that that style delivers more force . . .

[gkathellar]

The implication wasn't meant to be that you swing a sword the way you throw a punch. You don't, for the most part. I used the words "boxing metaphor" because the comparison between a straight and a haymaker was meant to be illustrative of the difference between generating power for a thrust an generating power for a chop. It was only meant to provide a slightly more intuitive way of wrapping one's head around the differences in power production.

Bear in mind that in combat with bladed weapons, power is mostly useful for wearing down an enemy's defenses/armor, not for actually doing damage. The edge of your weapon will cover that last part for you.

[Spiryt]

A hook (haymaker?) is typically not as a powerful as straight punch (cross?),

Hook is not really the same as haymaker, and I'm pretty sure that crosses and hooks can pretty much rival in terms of power...

But "pure" cross can never be as powerful as something that you also add "swing" to.

In GURPS all punches are based on thrust, never swing]

Depends on definition I guess, but it seems pretty weird to me - of course punching impact will always by pretty "thrust like", but motion in many punches, damn classic hook, for example will be obviously "swing like" in motion of the body.

Spoiler

Show

Not to even mention uppercut.

Bear in mind that in combat with bladed weapons, power is mostly useful for wearing down an enemy's defenses/armor, not for actually doing damage. The edge of your weapon will cover that last part for you.

Well, big power won't obviously be needed in many cases, but still some serious energy will usually be needed - especially if striking massive, resistant part of the body like ribcage or skull, and wanting to end fight as quickly as possible.

Simple connection/pat will rarely do the job, especially if target has at least shirt, or whatever.

[gkathellar]

Hook is not really the same as haymaker, and I'm pretty sure that crosses and hooks can pretty much rival in terms of power...

But "pure" cross can never be as powerful as something that you also add "swing" to.

Pretty much stop on. Hooks are defined by the use of torque to generate energy, usually from rotation of the hips. (You can turn the foot during a hook to put even more force into it, but that can leave you defenseless.) Karate people would probably debate that you can get more from a straight punch than a hook, but they also throw their straight punches very differently than boxers do.

There is one way you can definitely get more power from a cross than a hook, though — use it to counter.

Depends on definition I guess, but it seems pretty weird to me - of course punching impact will always by pretty "thrust like", but motion in many punches, damn classic hook, for example will be obviously "swing like" in motion of the body.

Not to even mention uppercut.

And that's without even getting into things like the hammer fist, knife hand, ridge hand, back fist, swinging iron claw or slap.

Simple connection/pat will rarely do the job, especially if target has at least shirt, or whatever.

This is true. You generally don't need much power to seriously injure someone with a blade, but you do need some.

[fusilier]

Depends on definition I guess, but it seems pretty weird to me - of course punching impact will always by pretty "thrust like", but motion in many punches, damn classic hook, for example will be obviously "swing like" in motion of the body.

Gurps defines swing and thrust as numerical damage. So a rapier may do thrust+2 piercing damage, and a shortsword may have swing-1 cutting damage, or something like that. Punches are all derived from the thrust value (but they aren't necessarily equal to thrust). We're not really supposed to go into game details on this thread, just wanted to clarify.

I thought hooks in boxing were primarily used close in where they, hopefully, can "hook around" your opponent's defenses, by attacking them from the edge of their peripheral vision? Punches being most powerful, and jabs being quick and direct. But, I'm by no means a student of the art.

[Incanur]

(Nor am I saying "thrusts are better and do more damage than cuts," I'm simply noting that, with a spear or sword, thrusts tend to generate more raw energy that can be focused at a single point for armor-piercing purposes.)

Blows always generate more power than thrusts, but you're correct for swords and spears because blades have greater area than points.

So if the weapon is small and light (like a dagger), then perhaps a thrusting motion delivers as much force as a swinging motion. A dagger can be wielded in an "over-hand" fashion, which would make attacking with it a downward swinging motion. I don't know if there are any studies showing that that style delivers more force . . .

There are, and the show that the overarm ice-pick-grip swing delivers considerably more energy than the underarm thrust.

Bear in mind that in combat with bladed weapons, power is mostly useful for wearing down an enemy's defenses/armor, not for actually doing damage. The edge of your weapon will cover that last part for you.

Thrusts require hardly any force to deliver a fatal wound - except against bone - but you need power to cut effectively.

[Spiryt]

I thought hooks in boxing were primarily used close in where they, hopefully, can "hook around" your opponent's defenses, by attacking them from the edge of their peripheral vision? Punches being most powerful, and jabs being quick and direct. But, I'm by no means a student of the art.

Well, which "punches" are most powerful though?

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that hooks can be used in majority of applications, but their obviously visibly lower range must be taken into account.

On mentioned short ranges they're pretty obviously most powerful one though.

Spoiler

Show

[gkathellar]

Blows always generate more power than thrusts, but you're correct for swords and spears because blades have greater area than points.

I'm inclined to disagree with you from my own experience, but it may be that I'm feeling the way energy would be delivered when I cut or thrust, rather than the actual amount of energy.

Thrusts require hardly any force to deliver a fatal wound - except against bone - but you need power to cut effectively.

That really depends on where you're cutting or thrusting.

I thought hooks in boxing were primarily used close in where they, hopefully, can "hook around" your opponent's defenses, by attacking them from the edge of their peripheral vision?

A hook is really just a torque-based punch with a tightly controlled arc of motion, which can be seamlessly executed while moving backwards because it doesn't derive force from forward movement. How exactly it's used is situational.

[Aux-Ash]

There are, and the show that the overarm ice-pick-grip swing delivers considerably more energy than the underarm thrust.

Of course it does. It's moving a greater distance and the energy "gained" from taking the object down from a higher position affects a lot. Not to mention the tensile energy when triceps brachii contract. There's a whole lot more stuff moving and many more systems involved in a overarm motion than a thrust.

And it has nothing to do with how well you will injure another. Force is a far more interesting thing to study here and even that will be insufficient to correctly describe what we're seeing.

[Traab]

This is just my opinion, but a fairly heavy weapon like say a broadsword (compared to something light like a dagger) would generate more force from a full force swing due to the momentum as well as putting your body into it. The problem is, that extra force is spread out along a much wider impact point of the 6 inches of edge that is connecting, or whatever portion of the blade hits, A thrust has somewhat less momentum and force, but because its all concentrated on a single inch or less of impact area, it has a magnified effect. I cant say which is better, though my gut says thrust, since the point has to penetrate less armor than your blade edge would on a swing.

I know, I know, deadliest warriors = stupid, but I wanted to point out something I saw on it. Between ivan the terribles bardiche, and cortez and his halberd at taking a guy off horse back. That bardiche, even swung by someone tired, made a terrific dent, but it didnt penetrate. The bardiche had a sizable amount of force behind it, but because it was smashing into a foots worth of armor, all that force was dissipated into a nasty dent, while the armor remained intact. That happened a lot, hacking weapons would generally penetrate armor less effectively than piercing weapons. Of course, on an unarmored target, I say hack away. Sure poking a hole in someone is nice, but cutting them in half at the waist is nicer. :p

[Raum]

Re: Thrust vs Swing / hook and armor penetration.
- Thrusts have three basic advantages: a shorter distance to target (straight line); greater range (a lunge can cover a surprising amount of ground); and, for defensive purposes, your weapon stays between you and your opponent.
- Swings / hooks have longer to travel but tend to be more powerful due to the body's rotational movement. If swinging a weapon, its tip speed is almost certainly faster than the point speed of a thrust (by equally skilled wielders) but will often look slower due to traveling a greater distance. There is also a significant difference in mechanics and penetration between a chopping swing and a cutting swing.

When it comes to actually penetrating steel, the amount of force you can apply to a small area is what matters. That said, in the case of armor you're generally better off going for a joint than trying to penetrate the steel. Armor works!

[Spiryt]

I know, I know, deadliest warriors = stupid, but I wanted to point out something I saw on it. Between ivan the terribles bardiche, and cortez and his halberd at taking a guy off horse back. That bardiche, even swung by someone tired, made a terrific dent, but it didnt penetrate. The bardiche had a sizable amount of force behind it, but because it was smashing into a foots worth of armor, all that force was dissipated into a nasty dent, while the armor remained intact. That happened a lot, hacking weapons would generally penetrate armor less effectively than piercing weapons. Of course, on an unarmored target, I say hack away. Sure poking a hole in someone is nice, but cutting them in half at the waist is nicer. :p

That's pretty clear, and that's the reason why thrust are pretty much banned in even pretty hardcore reenacting fights.

Big dent from axe can leave some headache, or broken bones, which is rarely dangerous when you can just say "stop" and leave the fight. But point can always find a way to get where it shouldn't.

But all in all, in any fight you also hack/slash/bash/jab depends on options you have given enemies equipment, actions, surrounding, etc.

So you do what you can in first place, obviously trying to do what you want, but the result is always different thing.

Anyway, even with heavy polaxe thingies, treatises seem to suggest thrusts indeed, thrust in what we would call "joints" too:

Spoiler

Show

Swings / hooks have longer to travel but tend to be more powerful due to the body's rotational movement

One can sometimes gain a lot of forward momentum in case of thrusts though, I guess. Charging (horses alone) or whatever. Hard to tell.

[gkathellar]

You're mostly right, but I just want to call out one point.

- Swings / hooks have longer to travel but tend to be more powerful due to the body's rotational movement.

You can and should put the body's rotational movement into a thrust by pivoting your hips [edit]and shoulders[/edit] into the strike. It's true you'll never get the momentum of a wide swing, but you can certainly get the advantageous body mechanics.

[Traab]

When it comes to actually penetrating steel, the amount of force you can apply to a small area is what matters. That said, in the case of armor you're generally better off going for a joint than trying to penetrate the steel. Armor works!

Best part is that while the joints may not reveal vital organs to aim at, there are a lot of major blood vessels to sever. So you may not get a punctured heart, but a severed femoral artery will kill you plenty fast enough. Or a crippled arm so you cant even USE your weapon anymore, all sorts of useful targets to hit.

[Hawkfrost000]

This is true. You generally don't need much power to seriously injure someone with a blade, but you do need some.

Depends on the sword, with a Longsword yes. But with something like a rapier you can safely deflect slashes and stabs with your bare hands and there is a whole series of movements devoted to it. It also requires a significant amount of force to cut effectively with a rapier, which is often sharper than a longsword.

DM

[Incanur]

And it has nothing to do with how well you will injure another.

When it comes penetrating armor, clothing, and/or bone, kinetic energy matters.

That happened a lot, hacking weapons would generally penetrate armor less effectively than piercing weapons.

During the height of plate armor in Europe, neither the blow nor thrust had much change of penetrating quality harness. Even with pollaxes and halberds, authors recommended thrusting for gaps and striking at the head. You don't have to cleave somebody's helmet to kill them.

[Beleriphon]

In regards to the thrust vs swing comments, its all a matter of how a weapon was designed to be used, and for whom.

A spear thrusts because 1) its easy to make, 2) it works well in formation, 3) it keeps you at a distance from your opponent and 4) its hard to swing something meant to be thrown (at least nominally thrown).

An arming sword (the classical D&D longsword) can be thrust and swung as a function of design. A weapon designed to be used from horseback can be hard to thrust since many times the thrust is aimed at a target you are moving perpendicular too, unless you are charging them. In charge the rider has to aim his lance, and keep the horse moving. Functionally the horse is doing all of the heavy lifting as far as momentum and application of force goes. The swing can still use the horse's momentum. A weapon that can do both is designed to be used in multiple ways, and there were combat techniques that were meant to that advantage of that.

[Knaight]

I believe that a swinging motion generally has more power behind it. [As an aside, in GURPS swinging is more powerful than thrusting]. So the form factor has a lot to do with armor penetration. However, a sword thrust is *quick* compared to a swing. It also requires that the sword and arm be held in such a way that it is stiff.

It depends. The length of the weapon effectively translates into the arc it follows, and the longer this is, the harder it hits. Kinetic energy being mass times velocity squared and what not. As such, a swinging motion with a longer weapon picks up a lot of energy, where swinging a dagger or something really wouldn't. Its particularly nasty with something you effectively lengthen the arc of while swinging - if you've seen a hewing spear in use, you know what I'm talking about.

I'd imagine aircraft, even slow ones like zeppelins, become extremely interesting without ranged weapons. Think about it:

How do you shoot down aircraft without ranged weapons?

Hang gliders with edges or a point sticking out deal quite well with zeppelins. With hydrogen zeppelins, its a blatant kamikaze move, but with helium it might actually be a survivable attack. Airplanes though, those cause problems.

[fusilier]

It depends. The length of the weapon effectively translates into the arc it follows, and the longer this is, the harder it hits. Kinetic energy being mass times velocity squared and what not. As such, a swinging motion with a longer weapon picks up a lot of power, where swinging a dagger or something really wouldn't.

Actually, as pointed out earlier force is more important, and in this rotational framework it's called torque. The question was whether or not you could generate more force thrusting versus swinging your arm. I assumed that mechanical advantage by artificially lengthening the arm was not considered.

So the example of swinging a dagger overhand versus thrusting underhand with a dagger was appropriate.

Also concerning the force generated by a punch. A sword thrust could be weaker than a straight punch, as the stance can involve leading with the same foot and hand.

[Knaight]

Actually, as pointed out earlier force is more important, and in this rotational framework it's called torque. The question was whether or not you could generate more force thrusting versus swinging your arm. I assumed that mechanical advantage by artificially lengthening the arm was not considered.

Given that the force being discussed tends to be the deceleration of the weapon upon contact, kinetic energy is highly relevant. Its not a one to one correlation by any means, but high torque weapons are likely to be high KE weapons - and artificially lengthening the arm has to be considered for a meaningful understanding of swung weapons, as they basically all do that to some extent.

[Aux-Ash]

When it comes penetrating armor, clothing, and/or bone, kinetic energy matters.

Kinetic energy is useful to measure what it takes to move something or as a go to step for heat, friction and similar. There's a reason there's an entire field in mechanics that deals with momentum, impacts, impulses and such. It's really quite complex.

One of the biggest problems is that in an impact, the energy in the system between the two objects that are hitting one another is combined (and if a 100 kg of human+equipment is involved, reaching the kJ-level is relatively easy). . But that doesn't mean there's great force exerted. You can have high energy with low force and low force with high energy.

The physics behind how a human body moves, and is injured, is amazingly complex. Like how the bones can easily support our entire weight and then some from above but if the same force is exerted from the side, while doing this they, break. But if they don't have to support our weight they can usually take it.
Kinetic energy is one of the absolutely simplest tools. It is simply insufficient to take into account the amazing complexity of it all.

If energy is all that it takes, there's also another problem. Arrows should be at their deadliest at their maximum range since that's when they'll have the most kinetic energy. All the energy that was required to lift them have at that point converted back into kinetic energy.
I believe observations fail to support that.

But to compare. According to your source up there, it'll take about 110 J to penetrate plate. I wonder if it ever took into account what our knight's kinetic energy would be?
Let's assume a 380 kg horse (since they used to be smaller), 70 kg of man (he'll probably be heavier) and 30 kg of equipment. Since he's probably approaching to kill they'll be charging and thus at a gallop. 40 km/h is 11,1 m/s.
w = (mv2)/2 gives us kinetic energy, m is mass, w is work (energy) and v is velocity. Some quick math shows us that the knight (and his armour) has a kinetic energy of approximately 29 040 J. 29 kJ.
And I haven't even taken friction into account.
So our knight here has, on his own (allright... the horse helped), a kinetic energy of a little more than 270 times what's needed for an arrowhead to penetrate his armour. And he'll most likely be going towards the archer.

That energy will not magically vanish when he hits something. But even if he isn't travelling at that speed or weighs a bit less... many impacts with knights and such will be in the kJ range. Because there's a whole lot of mass to transport/slow down.

In addition: Even if a object ricochets, it will still transfer a considerable amount of energy to the object it hits. Even if it bounces, all the energy that was used to move it forward have to be expended for the object to start travel in a different direction.

[fusilier]

- and artificially lengthening the arm has to be considered for a meaningful understanding of swung weapons, as they basically all do that to some extent.

Why?

If we want to know whether or not the action of swinging delivers more force, unassisted, than a thrust, why would we start by assuming we have an artificially extended arm.

Why not start by assuming no extension of the arm? Then consider the effect of swinging long weapons once we have established a basis. A very good, and totally practical example would be a dagger wielded overhand versus underhand.

[Knaight]

Why?

If we want to know whether or not the action of swinging delivers more force, unassisted, than a thrust, why would we start by assuming we have an artificially extended arm.

Why not start by assuming no extension of the arm? Then consider the effect of swinging long weapons once we have established a basis. A very good, and totally practical example would be a dagger wielded overhand versus underhand.

We are talking about the use of actual weapons though, and the vast majority of swung weapons do meaningfully extend the arm. The dagger is one of a handful of weapons where that isn't the case, and even then, there are a handful of larger knives that could be called a dagger where it does extend the arm.