Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVI

[Brother Oni]

Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XVI

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armour and now tactics since we tend to field a lot of those questions as well. The concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better, thus it's here rather than in Friendly Banter.

A few rules for this thread:

• This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics 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 feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics 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 politics 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!

Thread V
Thread VI
Thread VII
Thread VIII
Thread IX
Thread X
Thread XI
Thread XII
Thread XIII
Thread XIV
Thread XV

[Brother Oni]

To put those numbers into perspective the distance between where i understand China's old capital was and it's more distant borders is between 1000 and 2000 miles. Bearing in mind that overland distance is also much greater than crow flies distance the reality is those number will be much lager. That means for a message to move from the border to the capital anywhere from 1 to 2 month's would be quite possible as an upper estimate. Add on distance between your own border and the site of said plains elf invasion and it gets worse. And an army travels far slower than a messenger, the 30 mil per day figure is probably on the high side as an army has slow baggage trains and organizing a large force of troops takes a great deal of time each day at start and end of march.

I feel this depends on the composition of the army and the urgency. The Mongols were capable of moving very quickly (during the invasion of Hungary, it was reported they travelled up to 100 miles a day), but they were mainly a cavalry based army.

While a Roman legion typically managed 15-18 miles during normal operations (this included setting up and breaking down camp with fortifications at the end of every day), forced marches could manage up to 25 miles a day - Caesar often marched his troops ahead of the slower baggage train. Good roads and good weather helped a lot with travels - winter and no/poor roads often made travel near impossible. Vitellius' legions took two months to march from the Rhine to northern Italy in the early spring of 69AD (a quick check says Cologne to Milan is ~400 miles as the crow flies, or ~7 miles a day as a very rough ballpark figure).

[Carl]

Replying from a non-home computer so my reply may not be up to my usual standards.

Thanks for digging that up for me actually, which fits what i was saying nicely. Yes i was aware that armies could travel with some speed, i just wasn't sure of the exact speed, my estimate was 15 miles a day for normal and 30 for a forced march which fits what you dug up nicely. I deliberately didn't mention the mongols because not only where they cavalry based but their horses where famous for their endurance as a result of what natural selection had done to them over the year's. But that's hardly a normal situation obviously. I'd also point out that over the larger distances where potentially talking about a forced march for any significant stretch would probably be impractical and the baggage train for a several hundred to couple of thousand mile trek overland would be enormous.

[Matthew]

I feel this depends on the composition of the army and the urgency. The Mongols were capable of moving very quickly (during the invasion of Hungary, it was reported they travelled up to 100 miles a day), but they were mainly a cavalry based army.

Who reported that? Although Mongol armies were highly mobile, the last article I read on the subject took a more conservative view!

[Brother Oni]

Replying from a non-home computer so my reply may not be up to my usual standards.

Thanks for digging that up for me actually, which fits what i was saying nicely. Yes i was aware that armies could travel with some speed, i just wasn't sure of the exact speed, my estimate was 15 miles a day for normal and 30 for a forced march which fits what you dug up nicely. I deliberately didn't mention the mongols because not only where they cavalry based but their horses where famous for their endurance as a result of what natural selection had done to them over the year's. But that's hardly a normal situation obviously. I'd also point out that over the larger distances where potentially talking about a forced march for any significant stretch would probably be impractical and the baggage train for a several hundred to couple of thousand mile trek overland would be enormous.

Well the only thing faster than a Mongol army were the mechanised infantry of WW2 era, so I agree that they're completely atypical.

That said, the Romans were among the faster of the pre-modern armies, so unless the fantasy army has their immense infrastructure and discipline, it's unlikely they'd be able to manage the same distances (best I heard was 32 miles a day for 3 days). Some checking indicates that the 'regular step' was 29.6km (18.5 miles) with 20.5kg of gear and the 'faster step' was 35.5km (22.2 miles) with the same gear, all in 5 summer hours.

Other famous forced marches were Harold's army marching from the south coast to Tadcaster before the Battle of Stamford Bridge (~300 miles in 2 weeks) then back down again to Hastings in a similar sort of time when William landed (this was through friendly territory though, so less logistical issues).

8-10 miles a day is a more accurate measure if a medieval army is transporting its own supplies across land. I believe that during the Third Crusade, Richard the Lionhearted arranged for his army to be supplied by sea and they managed much faster travel times (I can't find a reference to the exact speed in this case, but I've seen values of up to 20 miles a day for a medieval army).

Interestingly these sorts of speeds are still about typical in today's military - the WW2 Wehrmark managed 40km/day and British light infantry are expected to maintain 24 miles a day while yomping/tabbing (marching with full kit of ~50kg). I guess there's only so much a guy can carry and still march/fight effectively.

Who reported that? Although Mongol armies were highly mobile, the last article I read on the subject took a more conservative view!

The only reference I have for that is the Hungarian invasion, but it's unsourced. The only actual source I have is a 40-60 mile range for an normal speed march: link.

[Galloglaich]

Who reported that? Although Mongol armies were highly mobile, the last article I read on the subject took a more conservative view!

Mongol armies would bring as many as 6 horses per rider with them on big raids (tafur? something like that?) which made them potentially very mobile but also subject to some major limitations:

They were enormously dependent on being able to find fodder, water, and sufficient space for a huge number of horses. A major raid of 1 tumen of Mongol warriors (10,000 men) meant up to 60,000 horses had to be provided for. And horses don't last long without food or especially water.

Partly this meant they had to (and did) make very good use of scouts and other forms of intelligence gathering (capturing and interrogating locals, suborning spies and potential allies and so on) to get an accurate sense of the lay of the land around them when they were going on a raid or an attack. Mongol ponies / horses don't need grain the way a lot of Western breeds do, and can live on grass alone, and they can also endure extremes of temperature and environmental conditions almost beyond belief, in order to keep moving efficiently they had to benefit from a certain amount of luck, operated best in specific environments (i.e. the steppe) and scorched-earth tactics, if taken to the extreme of poisoning water supplies and burning fields, could have devastating effects on them. This was demonstrated in Hungary during the period roughly 1241-1340. It also meant that unexpected and sudden weather events like heavy rains, hail or severe drought which reduced the amount of horse fodder could cripple a Mongol army almost overnight.

It also meant that Mongol armies had to remain on the move since that many horses (not counting other pack animals) meant the potential for disease was enormous. When forced to stay in one area they would disperse widely and go on almost constant foraging raids, which had the benefit of further devastating the lands of their enemies (if they were in an enemy zone) but also exposing them to ambush and counter-raid as again seen in Hungary among other places.

So in absolutely ideal circumstances in an ideal environment such as on the steppe, a Mongol army might be able to make 100 miles a day, I don't think that is impossible. In practical terms in most situations it was probably a lot less than that.

But there was another way that people could travel back then almost as quickly, albeit also subject to certain vagaries of weather and climate: the seas and rivers.

A famous late medieval account of a shooting contest in Strasbourg described how the gunners contingent (effectively a small military unit) from one of the Swiss towns (I think it was Zurich) managed to make it all the way to Strasbourg in the unheard of time of 19 hours, traveling down the rivers. That is about 90 miles in one day, only partly on river (mainly the Rhine). These same travel networks were exploited by the military as well as for trade, especially for the movement of guns and supplies.

Maybe someone can figure out how far a medieval ship (galleys and also sailing ships) traveled in a day, I think a typical speed was 3 to 6 knots depending on various conditions but I don't know how long a sailing day would typically be. But I know they could make pretty good time. Same on the rivers and canals - they dug canals between many of the major river systems in Europe starting in the 13th Century. For example Hamburg and Lubeck in the 1390's, which connected the Elbe and the Trave rivers, and thus effectively the Baltic with the North Sea (bypassing the Danish at the Oresund). Apparently the trip took 14 days because there were so many locks, but not all the canals were so steep.

From what I understand they also had similar canal systems in China, even more extensive.

Travel on the rivers and on sea and ocean-going ships of course was also heavily impacted by weather and climate, in some areas certain seasons block travel altogether either overland or on the seas.

Speaking of which the use of ski's was another important high-speed military transportation method used in Scandinavia, Finland and Russia. Along with the skis they had the Troika which was a type of sleigh (or cart, depending on the season) pulled by a team of 3 horses which could maintain a very high speed for a long time.

We also know the Norse Varjag bands would travel an enormous distance in a single season, from the Baltic Coast all the way down to the Black Sea and back in some cases, mainly using the rivers but also having to go through many portages. The Cossacks later resumed these methods, there are many amazing accounts of Cossack river battles involving huge armies, such as you see here

Spoiler: Cossacks and Siberians

Show

G

[Galloglaich]

Interestingly these sorts of speeds are still about typical in today's military - the WW2 Wehrmark managed 40km/day and British light infantry are expected to maintain 24 miles a day while yomping/tabbing (marching with full kit of ~50kg). I guess there's only so much a guy can carry and still march/fight effectively.

Whenever I'm reminded of these numbers, which I agree are accurate for the Romans, in the Napoleonic wars, and in WW I and WWII, and I think in some places as recently as Vietnam, I still find them amazing. It takes a lot of discipline to make an army travel that far in a day on foot. The longest road-march I ever did in the Army was 23 miles, and that was at the very end of boot camp when I was probably in the best shape of my life and was only 18 years old. To say it wore me out would be a major understatement. Sore beyond belief, exhausted beyond belief. To do that and better day after day, in sandals no less, carrying a full load, is a remarkable testament to an armies discipline, fitness, and morale (and / or the harsh control of their officers and NCO's).

I know many people these days run Marathons, which is an amazing achievement as well, but it's not quite the same when you are carrying weapons and a rucksack and ammunition and water and everything, and marching in even a loose formation rather than at your own pace.

G

[Stellar_Magic]

Well backpacking I've managed up to 15 miles in a couple hours with an 80 lb pack. Considering this was cross country with boy scouts in the Big Horn mountains, I can see an army on roads managing twice this number or more with practice and formal training.

[Galloglaich]

Well backpacking I've managed up to 15 miles in a couple hours with an 80 lb pack. Considering this was cross country with boy scouts in the Big Horn mountains, I can see an army on roads managing twice this number or more with practice and formal training.

That is impressive to me! Seven or eight miles an hour in mountain trails is pretty good time I think. Where was all this when I was (very briefly) in the boy scouts? All they seemed to do was eat cookies and collect dues, and I remember something about knots...

G

[JustSomeGuy]

Just my experience, but I have run a couple of marathons and a 32 miler before (trainers, t shirt etc) along well worn tracks and paved roads, and they were much easier than walking a marathon in boots and kit going full cross-country. I think the biggest factor is the ground being covered; travelling over a smoothed worn track of any sort is significantly different from unkept moorland and such. Heather, 'babies head' grass mounds, long grass, rocky or boggy ground under vegetation make every step about 3 times slower/shorter/less useful.

[snowblizz]

, in sandals no less,

Interestingly, what's to say sandals are worse than army boots. I'm thinking it may actually have been a benefit. After all we are better walkers *without* anything on since that's the way we are supposed to walk. I'm reminded of those "feet-shoes", so sandals may well be closer to our optimal than mass-produced lowest bidder army boots.

[dramatic flare]

Whenever I'm reminded of these numbers, which I agree are accurate for the Romans, in the Napoleonic wars, and in WW I and WWII, and I think in some places as recently as Vietnam, I still find them amazing. It takes a lot of discipline to make an army travel that far in a day on foot. The longest road-march I ever did in the Army was 23 miles, and that was at the very end of boot camp when I was probably in the best shape of my life and was only 18 years old. To say it wore me out would be a major understatement. Sore beyond belief, exhausted beyond belief. To do that and better day after day, in sandals no less, carrying a full load, is a remarkable testament to an armies discipline, fitness, and morale (and / or the harsh control of their officers and NCO's).

I know many people these days run Marathons, which is an amazing achievement as well, but it's not quite the same when you are carrying weapons and a rucksack and ammunition and water and everything, and marching in even a loose formation rather than at your own pace.

G

I'd like to add that in Roman times they had to walk everywhere, all the time, anyway. I'm assuming that you've probably had access to/ your parents had access to a car most of the time instead. I think this scenario is one of those things that can be safely considered incomparable due to the grand difference in major lifestyle transportation.
A second point, more of as a question, would be the type of terrain you knocked 23 miles off of. I bet those impressive Roman speeds are partially due to their impressive Roman roads... not that 23 miles is something to scoff at. *pokes own flub.*



Just out of curiosity, do most ancient/medieval units march with the armor actually on? I would think it would be easier to stow most of it.

[Brother Oni]

Maybe someone can figure out how far a medieval ship (galleys and also sailing ships) traveled in a day, I think a typical speed was 3 to 6 knots depending on various conditions but I don't know how long a sailing day would typically be.

Pliny the Elder records some very fast voyages (ie intentional speed runs) which measure up to between 4.5 and 6 knots an hour: link.

In particular, the Ostia-Africa voyage of 270nm could be done in 2 days, whereas a more typical voyage was 2.5-3 days. Given the vagaries of the wind for sea travel, I would presume that they sailed around the clock, with different shifts crewing the ship at all hours (if someone knows better, please correct me).

To do that and better day after day, in sandals no less, carrying a full load, is a remarkable testament to an armies discipline, fitness, and morale (and / or the harsh control of their officers and NCO's).

I've heard a good rule of thumb is 10% losses to attrition due to forced marching, from injuries, exhaustion and stragglers. With the Roman army, these men left behind were expected to catch up with their unit when they were able, which implies an excellent espirit d'corps. In contrast, during the Napoleonic era, the provosts would scoop up these loose men instead.

Just out of curiosity, do most ancient/medieval units march with the armor actually on? I would think it would be easier to stow most of it.

Stow most of it on what though? If you had it in the baggage train then you'd be unarmoured in case of surprise enemy attack. There's also the problem of theft when leaving your kit unattended.

The only other option would be for soldiers to carry it themselves and if you're doing that, it's easier to hump it around wearing it than carrying it (from experience, a 15kg mail shirt is much easier to move about with it on than stowed in a backpack). Lower leg armour was unpopular with foot soldiers (more weight to lift with every step) and not many infantry wore armour below the knee.

That said, there were tricks to make marching with gear easier - in the English Civil War, pikemen used to drag their long pikes behind them ('trailing the pike') rather than carry them at the ready on the shoulder.
The more encompassing helmets were often carried at the belt or left on the horse when not required.

[GraaEminense]

Stow most of it on what though? If you had it in the baggage train then you'd be unarmoured in case of surprise enemy attack. There's also the problem of theft when leaving your kit unattended.

The only other option would be for soldiers to carry it themselves and if you're doing that, it's easier to hump it around wearing it than carrying it (from experience, a 15kg mail shirt is much easier to move about with it on than stowed in a backpack). Lower leg armour was unpopular with foot soldiers (more weight to lift with every step) and not many infantry wore armour below the knee.

Heat would be one main reason -not much of an issue with mail or breastplate, but gambesons and the like can get hot very fast. That also means you require more water, which might be a logistical issue.
That aside, I agree: Armour is easier to wear than to carry.

[Galloglaich]

Heat would be one main reason -not much of an issue with mail or breastplate, but gambesons and the like can get hot very fast. That also means you require more water, which might be a logistical issue.
That aside, I agree: Armour is easier to wear than to carry.

Didn't the Romans have a sort of T-shaped thing they carried their gear on?

G

[dramatic flare]

Hmm. I know the Japanese had tatami ( basically, a folding armor that one could carry around in a box when it wasn't time for battle) that came in a wide variety of compositions, though I suppose Europe's more scavenger-style acquisition of armor would make theft a larger problem.

[GraaEminense]

Didn't the Romans have a sort of T-shaped thing they carried their gear on?

They did, but from what I can see after a quick Google-search they wore their armour and carried everything else.

[Brother Oni]

My turn for a question: suppose we had a critter with regenerative capabilities that meant that only significant and extensive tissue destruction or sudden and massive exsanguination were the only reliable ways of killing it.

While the former method is easy to picture (pinning it down then setting it on fire or covering in a corrosive liquid), I'm curious what weapons and techniques would be useful to achieve the latter. Presumably in modern day, large calibre rounds or other things that punch big holes in things would be ideal, so let's contrast with how melee weapons would do the trick.

I know triangular bayonets were known for their wounds which didn't close, but the blood loss may be a bit too slow. Large slashing weapons aimed at veins, arteries and other blood rich areas? Amputation of limbs?

[Sidmen]

If you want to inflict bleeding wounds on an unarmored foe, your best bet for the most damage would be a double-edged sword. One or two handed doesn't matter much (obviously, two handed would give you a better reach), both would result in long, deep gashes that cut through veins and arteries both large and small.

For modern weapons, you'd absolutely want an automatic weapon firing hollow-point rounds. Your best bet would be a PDW chambered for .45 or 9mm - like a MP5 or more modern variant. Those should maximize your tissue damage and open the biggest exit wounds to help in bleeding out. Unless you can get your hands on explosives (massive tissue damage) or really heavy weapons, that should be your best option.

[Raum]

My turn for a question: suppose we had a critter with regenerative capabilities that meant that only significant and extensive tissue destruction or sudden and massive exsanguination were the only reliable ways of killing it.

While the former method is easy to picture (pinning it down then setting it on fire or covering in a corrosive liquid), I'm curious what weapons and techniques would be useful to achieve the latter. Presumably in modern day, large calibre rounds or other things that punch big holes in things would be ideal, so let's contrast with how melee weapons would do the trick.

Much will depend on your critter's anatomy. Assuming something not far from human, you'll want to open a major artery and/or create a wound large enough not to heal before blood loss takes it's course.

I'd suggest large caliber frangible rounds, broad head arrows, or (relatively) wide blades. Even then, location of the hit will probably matter more than the weapon.

[JustSomeGuy]

Doubt this'll help much, more just playing with my imagination; I picture some kind of heavy hammer with an apple-corer on the end, so it smashes into the creature and pulls out a large plug of flesh. Bonus points for heart extraction.

I figure it'd be too heavy for regular combat, but if the creature can be occupied fighting someone else a specialist could run in and make the hit, snatch team style.

Or put it on some ridiculous oversized weapon, like that german with the hammer thing at the start of 'gladiator'. That'd get around the weight/handling problem, put it on a weapon that already is off the charts. Or some kind of cavalry weapon.

Could the creature be entangled and defeated? Bypassing regeneration etc. entirely, to be destroyed at a later convenience? Nets, whips and ropes, chains, bolas, whatever. Just make sure your studded leather armour isn't patent, or your forces would take a most undesirable appearance!

[Yora]

To run a pipe through a person, including ribs, spine, and armor, you'd need a huge amount of force. A hammer would be so big that you would have to tie down the target on the ground. There is no way for "a specialist to sneak up" and hit a distracted enemy in the back.
Usually I am with "there are no stupid questions". But in a discussion about real world weapons, this one is stupid.

[JustSomeGuy]

It wasn't so much 'sneak up' as 'hang back behind q baseline while regular troops engage, and if you spot a particularly static opponent charge out and have a swing at it, then fall back'. But yeah I agree it's a pretty stupid idea. Most of mine are!

A very surgical option - does their heart work similarly to ours? If so, you could find a way to drain their 'residual volume' (might well have the terminology wrong, basically a small amount of blood remaining in the heart so it can continue to function hydraulically) with some kind of vacuum stiletto, or pump a load of air inside. But if you're doing that, might as well pump it full of acid/poison/kryptonite/electricity. Actually, could you shock their heart out of rhythm? Hmmm...

[Brother Oni]

For modern weapons, you'd absolutely want an automatic weapon firing hollow-point rounds. Your best bet would be a PDW chambered for .45 or 9mm - like a MP5 or more modern variant. Those should maximize your tissue damage and open the biggest exit wounds to help in bleeding out. Unless you can get your hands on explosives (massive tissue damage) or really heavy weapons, that should be your best option.

Interesting. I was under the impression that hollowpoints tended to shed all their energy on impact or inside the target, thus over-penetration was unreliable at best.

I should also qualify that you'd need tissue destruction (eg fire or acid) as otherwise they would regenerate the damage - pulping their internal organs with a shockwave from an explosion would slow them down or temporarily incapcitate them, but you'd still need to cause them to bleed out or actually destroy the tissue to kill them.

I'd suggest large caliber frangible rounds, broad head arrows, or (relatively) wide blades. Even then, location of the hit will probably matter more than the weapon.

Hmm true. Do they make JHPs for a M2 or other GPMG class weapon? I was under the impression that any expanding or frangible round for military applications was banned under the Hague Convention.
Thanks for reminding me about broadheads - the medieval ones were nasty enough, but modern hunting variants just look brutal (I would post a picture of what I mean, but work filters now pick up weapons, which include archery companies).

Could the creature be entangled and defeated? Bypassing regeneration etc. entirely, to be destroyed at a later convenience? Nets, whips and ropes, chains, bolas, whatever. Just make sure your studded leather armour isn't patent, or your forces would take a most undesirable appearance!

Most definitely, just that they're intelligent, quick, powerful and aggressive, so live capture would be difficult at best as they could escape or break through.

I would think having what appears to be a small army of BDSM guys in gimp suits would probably make most things run away in terror, especially when they're also carrying something intended for large diameter deep penetration.

Your apple-corer hammer is a good idea though and developing it a bit further gives me spears or harpoons intended to be pulled free while ripping a large chunk of flesh with it. If they had bladed one way arms mounted behind the head, which fold when piercing but extend when pulling out, it would aid in the flesh ripping.

While it would raise the chance of the weapon getting stuck in the creature, the additional damage would probably be worth it.

Attaching a rope or chain to the harpoon and firing it from a crossbow would also be fairly effective, especially if mounted to an automatic reel on a vehicle or other fixed emplacement.

A very surgical option - does their heart work similarly to ours? If so, you could find a way to drain their 'residual volume' (might well have the terminology wrong, basically a small amount of blood remaining in the heart so it can continue to function hydraulically) with some kind of vacuum stiletto, or pump a load of air inside. But if you're doing that, might as well pump it full of acid/poison/kryptonite/electricity. Actually, could you shock their heart out of rhythm? Hmmm...

The critter I'm thinking of was inspired by the chiropterans from Blood: The Last Vampire, so presumably their internal organs are similar as they're derived from human stock. They're large bat-like creatures which feed primarily off blood, with the aforementioned regenerative capability.

Spoiler: chiropteran

Show

[Eldan]

For the apple-core hammer: something like this, maybe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hole_digger

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Much will depend on your critter's anatomy. Assuming something not far from human, you'll want to open a major artery and/or create a wound large enough not to heal before blood loss takes it's course.

I'd suggest large caliber frangible rounds, broad head arrows, or (relatively) wide blades. Even then, location of the hit will probably matter more than the weapon.

Ever heard of Butchers Groin?

If a butcher is boning out a joint of meat, they've got the knife in their fist, blade down and edge pointing towards them. If the knife snags then comes free, chances are it's coming straight for the inside of their thigh with a lot of force, where the femoral artery runs close to the surface, and is at very high pressure.

I had a Saturday job years ago, where one of the full timers was a trained butcher who'd seen someone injure himself in that manner - seems that the apron the guy was wearing was pushed out to the horizontal by the pressure of the blood coming out of the wound, and they carried the guy out to the ambulance with his legs drawn up to his body and a pressure bandage around his thigh to keep him alive until he reached hospital.

(I think most processing factory butchers wear chainmail aprons these days to reduce the chances of similar injuries).

Chemicals and drugs might be another weapon though, especially anything that massively increases blood pressure and heart rate, acts as an anticoagulant, and/or can cause thin walled capillaries to rupture.

However, something that basically cores the target probably won't cause massive blood loss unless it's got holes bored in the sides, otherwise the sides will effectively staunch the wound.

[Yora]

Hmm true. Do they make JHPs for a M2 or other GPMG class weapon? I was under the impression that any expanding or frangible round for military applications was banned under the Hague Convention.

Yes, but the Hague Convention is angreement for real world war. It doesn't apply to any other situations, like police. If you are dealing with supernatural threats or aliens, there is no reason why not make an exception for soldiers in these special cases, or lift the ban entirely.

Interesting. I was under the impression that hollowpoints tended to shed all their energy on impact or inside the target, thus over-penetration was unreliable at best.

They do shed all their energy. Which is partly into deforming the projectile, but mostly into deforming the tissue they went into, which, as I understand it, rips the blood vessels and muscle fibres apart.
Compared to FMJ bullets, hollow points have a greatly reduced chance to overpenetrate. If the round is powerful enough, it will still come out the other side, but for police it's usually highly important to reduce the chance of that happening as much as they can.

How is the regeneration supposed to work? Do wounds heal almost instantly when the pieces of tissue are joined back together? In that case you probably would need outright dismemberment.

[Storm Bringer]

Interesting. I was under the impression that hollowpoints tended to shed all their energy on impact or inside the target, thus over-penetration was unreliable at best.

I should also qualify that you'd need tissue destruction (eg fire or acid) as otherwise they would regenerate the damage - pulping their internal organs with a shockwave from an explosion would slow them down or temporarily incapcitate them, but you'd still need to cause them to bleed out or actually destroy the tissue to kill them.



Hmm true. Do they make JHPs for a M2 or other GPMG class weapon? I was under the impression that any expanding or frangible round for military applications was banned under the Hague Convention.

the hague convention did ban explosive rounds (for rounds below a certain calibre, see below) and things like dum dum bullets.

But the logic was that these weapons only increased suffering without increasing effectivness, in that a man with a bullet hole in his arm is as hors de combat as a man whose had his arm blown off. The calibre limit on explosive rounds was set at the smallest round capable of making a worthwhile blast radius, i.e. when the explosives added to the effectiveness of the round. So everyone agreed not to use these nasty weapons, and get brownie points for being civilised and restrained, knowing that they were not really limiting their options in a practical sense.

that same treaty also banned the use of poison gas, but when WW1 rolled round, that article kinda got ignored when the powers worked out how to use gas effectively.


on a more recent note, their is a persistent rumour that its against the Hague/Geneva/some treaty or other to use 50 cal or other big rounds on humans, and you must aim at equipment (for example, vehicles, bunkers, belt buckles...). this is not true, as the proliferation of 50 cal sniper rifles indicated. they are called "anti-material" rilfes, but they are perfectly legal to use on humans.



so, all in all, creating a 7.62 or 12.7 mm round with explosives is perfectly possible, if it does allows that round to achieve something useful that it couldn't do otherwise. Killing and/or seriously wounding a troll like creature would be a very good use of Armour Piercing Incendiary (API) rounds currently being made in 50 cal.

[Mr Beer]

Can these critters be put down with a brain hit and can a human reach their skull easily? If so, you could melee them with a pick & axe bladed weapon. The pick can be used to penetrate the skull and knock them down. The axe blade could be relatively long and thin to optimise for cutting and can be used to slice open the throat of a downed foe.

[Mabn]

If I wanted to kill a troll and fire wasn't an option I'd want to use ammunition with a large serrated head. The troll would heal over the arrow but the head would cut its insides whenever it moved, so it would get progressively more disabled due to internal bleeding with no outlet for the resulting blood. This would eventually kill it with very acceptable risk to its slayers.