Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Brother Oni]

Do we have any other example where shooters/musketeers/riflemen/line infantry of the gunpowder era were issued two separate melee weapons?

During the English Civil War, musketeers could carry their own sword, although plug bayonets were issued after that conflict.

Spoiler: Musketeer engraving c1620

Show

In Volume 12 of the Binglu (兵錄, Record of Military Arts), c1606, there's mention of a plug bayonet for a breech loaded musket.

Spoiler: Breech loaded musket with plug bayonet, c1630

Show

Ming era musketeers were also issued with dao (sabres), judging from this page in a later manual.

Spoiler: Ming Dynasty musket formation c1639

Show

[fusilier]

During the English Civil War, musketeers could carry their own sword, although plug bayonets were issued after that conflict.

Spoiler: Musketeer engraving c1620

Show

That image comes from De Gheyn's manual (circa 1610, perhaps drawn a little earlier), which covers pike, musketeers, and arquebusiers (shot). The pictures are very well drawn, and can serve as a costume manual. I think almost all soldiers are depicted with both a sword and a dagger. Daggers can also be useful outside of combat, so it's not too surprising that everyone would be carrying one. I imagine it is similar to modern soldiers carrying a pocket knife -- except that there was probably a greater chance that the dagger would be used in combat.

[Brother Oni]

That image comes from De Gheyn's manual (circa 1610, perhaps drawn a little earlier), which covers pike, musketeers, and arquebusiers (shot). The pictures are very well drawn, and can serve as a costume manual. I think almost all soldiers are depicted with both a sword and a dagger. Daggers can also be useful outside of combat, so it's not too surprising that everyone would be carrying one. I imagine it is similar to modern soldiers carrying a pocket knife -- except that there was probably a greater chance that the dagger would be used in combat.

I looked up his name and I see what you mean by the engravings being good enough for a costume manual:

Spoiler: De Wapenhandelinghe van Roers, Musketten ende Spiesen, 1608

Show

I think in that series of photographs which depicted soldiers' kit throughout the centuries, there was always a couple of constants; a small utility knife and eating utensils (typically a spoon and a bowl at the very least). A dagger or a fighting knife seems to have been issued separately (most notably with modern kit where the knife can also be mounted as a bayonet).

[rrgg]

At the other end of the spectrum there's this fun cartoon from the 17th century of an English soldier in Ireland.

Spoiler

Show

I have heard that in some cultures, a sword was the mark of a soldier, and therefore was a kind of status symbol.

To be fair that seems to have included most europeans up through the 19th century or so as well. The claim that they just make soldiers look "more soldierly" seems to come up pretty often among those who kept pushing for soldiers to still carry a sword of some sort during the enlightenment period, even if the soldiers rarely actually used them and they might get in the way at times. I suppose there might be some situations where a short, light sword might come in handy like if you found yourself fighting in a tight, confined space where a musket and bayonet would be too long or if you ended up within wrestling range. In previous periods it was considered very important to have not only a sword as a backup to your polearm or primary weapon, but also to have a good dagger so that you have a backup for your backup. From the 1700s onwards though yeah they seem to have been considered less essential.

[Lilapop]

sword as a backup to your polearm or primary weapon, but also to have a good dagger so that you have a backup for your backup.

Bladed weapons seem to be significantly lighter than modern firearms - non-miniature pistols only really dropped below 1 kg (the average weight of most onehanded swords) with polymer frames like Glocks, and that is without ammo. So having a backup-backup dagger to your backup sword is, encumbrance-wise, a different kettle of fish than a backup-backup pistol to your backup rifle.

Considering that for most combat roles, the rifle is indeed a backup, the idea of giving every soldier a pistol that seems to surface from time to time doesn't strike me as all that smart.

[Gnoman]

Bladed weapons seem to be significantly lighter than modern firearms - non-miniature pistols only really dropped below 1 kg (the average weight of most onehanded swords) with polymer frames like Glocks, and that is without ammo. So having a backup-backup dagger to your backup sword is, encumbrance-wise, a different kettle of fish than a backup-backup pistol to your backup rifle.

Considering that for most combat roles, the rifle is indeed a backup, the idea of giving every soldier a pistol that seems to surface from time to time doesn't strike me as all that smart.

The empty weight (magazine but no ammo) of both the Browning Hi-Power and M1911A1 is almost right on 1kg. Those are turn-of-the-20th-century service pistols in solid calibers. The Makarov is .75kg, from 1948. Even the Beretta M9, infamous for being a very heavy design, clocks in only .9 unloaded.

[halfeye]

Considering that for most combat roles, the rifle is indeed a backup, the idea of giving every soldier a pistol that seems to surface from time to time doesn't strike me as all that smart.

The rifle is a backup? to what?

For a tank crew that sort of works, but not for infantry as I understand it.

[fusilier]

To be fair that seems to have included most europeans up through the 19th century or so as well.

Yeah, I did not mean to imply that European cultures were excluded from my statement. The United States seem to have been an exception, whereas in Mexico the tradition continued well into the 19th century.

[Thiel]

In the Danish 1864 TV series Danish line infantry seems to be armed with a musket, a socket bayonet and... a shortsword? Quick googling give a few contemporary pictures like this one



showing that this is not some fevered fantasy of the filmmakers. And the blade definitely looks like a shortsword - any sort of utility blade should be either shorter or wider.

Do we have any other example where shooters/musketeers/riflemen/line infantry of the gunpowder era were issued two separate melee weapons?

And would anyone care to speculate about the thought process behind this loadout? It seems to run contrary to many of the military ideals of the time: economy (even in industrial era the blades are not cheap), neatness (two scabbards on the same hip are aesthetically displeasing), simplicity (some fool in the heat of the battle would inevitably try to attach the shortsword to the musket).

Those are Sidevåben for Fodfolk M1854 or Sidearm for Infantry M1854 in English. It's a copy of a Prussian model 1840 which in turn is patterned on a French model 1831. They were captured from Schleswig-Holstein rebels, refurbished and issued to the Danish infantry. The remained in inventory well into the 20th century

[AdAstra]

The rifle is a backup? to what?

For a tank crew that sort of works, but not for infantry as I understand it.

Depending on your definition of rifle, this is indeed quite common. Carbines and other light handy firearms, as well as sometimes full sized rifles, are commonly issued to people who’s primary job was NOT shooting that firearm at people. Artillery and vehicle crews, support troops, rear-line personnel, officers, or people who operate heavy weapons, like mortars. There are plenty of soldiers for whom personal small arms will be rarely used, but a pistol would be insufficient or require too much training to really be proficient.

[Mike_G]

Depending on your definition of rifle, this is indeed quite common. Carbines and other light handy firearms, as well as sometimes full sized rifles, are commonly issued to people who’s primary job was NOT shooting that firearm at people. Artillery and vehicle crews, support troops, rear-line personnel, officers, or people who operate heavy weapons, like mortars. There are plenty of soldiers for whom personal small arms will be rarely used, but a pistol would be insufficient or require too much training to really be proficient.

I can't agree enough, and I'm glad someone brought it up.

This was the whole purpose of the M1 Carbine, of which we made 6 million in WWII. It was half the weight of the rifle, but was useful out to 100 or 200 yards, which the M1911...isn't.

[wilphe]

Or why PDWs were invented, or why you used to give those guys SMGs

[Mike_G]

Or why PDWs were invented, or why you used to give those guys SMGs

Which are crap at 100 yards as well. And the early SMGs, like the Thompson weigh as much as the Garand anyway. Even before you figure ammo weight for an automatic weapon.

SMGs are useful in the assault and in close quarters and total crap at everything else.

[halfeye]

Depending on your definition of rifle, this is indeed quite common. Carbines and other light handy firearms, as well as sometimes full sized rifles, are commonly issued to people who’s primary job was NOT shooting that firearm at people. Artillery and vehicle crews, support troops, rear-line personnel, officers, or people who operate heavy weapons, like mortars. There are plenty of soldiers for whom personal small arms will be rarely used, but a pistol would be insufficient or require too much training to really be proficient.

If you're going to define "rifle" that way, then rifles are no longer used in war, except by snipers.

[AdAstra]

If you're going to define "rifle" that way, then rifles are no longer used in war, except by snipers.

? That doesn’t follow. The existence of lighter weapons that qualify as rifles does not suddenly make standard infantry arms NOT rifles. A carbine being a rifle doesn’t make a rifle something else.

[wilphe]

Which are crap at 100 yards as well. And the early SMGs, like the Thompson weigh as much as the Garand anyway. Even before you figure ammo weight for an automatic weapon.

SMGs are useful in the assault and in close quarters and total crap at everything else.

Not particularly disagreeing with you, but that still means a lot of SMGs got issued to anybody other than infantry for being better than a pistol but lighter and cheaper than a rifle, as well as having low overheads in training and maintenance.

Not Thompsons certainly, because they are big, heavy and expensive; but Sterlings, M3 Grease Guns, PPSh, Stens and the like

[wilphe]

? That doesn’t follow. The existence of lighter weapons that qualify as rifles does not suddenly make standard infantry arms NOT rifles. A carbine being a rifle doesn’t make a rifle something else.

We are arguing terminology here, but modern "rifles" are almost all "assault rifles" and the "assault" part tends to be dropped because they are the only game in town.

Rifles as the term was understood until 1944 are a different type of weapon such as Lee-Enfield or Gewehr 98
- Full power cartridge
- Bolt Action (Garand not included)
- Magazine Fed
- Long range potential

Militaries don't use those anymore, they either use an Assault (or Battle) rifle with a reduced cartridge with full auto capability and shorter range or they stick a scope on a "traditional" rifle and that becomes a DMR or Sniper weapon.

[fusilier]

Those are Sidevåben for Fodfolk M1854 or Sidearm for Infantry M1854 in English. It's a copy of a Prussian model 1840 which in turn is patterned on a French model 1831. They were captured from Schleswig-Holstein rebels, refurbished and issued to the Danish infantry. The remained in inventory well into the 20th century

Thank you Thiel for the detailed information.

[KineticDiplomat]

Re: rifles.

In many modern armies, the assignment of carbines and rifles is reversed from the WWII conception.

The US, for instance, transitioned to the M4 carbine as it’s primary “rifle”. The first people to be issued were infantry and some other line types, gradually working its way through armor, artillery, etc. and only equipping logistics and clerks types last. The farther to the rear a unit is/was, the more M16 rifles and less M4 carbines it will have.

The marines, by a mix of both their own culture and being second place in navy budgets, maintain more rifles in their frontline mix, but are also actively modernizing to mostly carbines.

If you look at Russian equipping, you are more likely to see carbine variant AKs in higher quality units - generally the higher the ration of “contract soldiers” (aka, not conscripts) the more carbinized AKs you’ll see.

[AdAstra]

We are arguing terminology here, but modern "rifles" are almost all "assault rifles" and the "assault" part tends to be dropped because they are the only game in town.

Rifles as the term was understood until 1944 are a different type of weapon such as Lee-Enfield or Gewehr 98
- Full power cartridge
- Bolt Action (Garand not included)
- Magazine Fed
- Long range potential

Militaries don't use those anymore, they either use an Assault (or Battle) rifle with a reduced cartridge with full auto capability and shorter range or they stick a scope on a "traditional" rifle and that becomes a DMR or Sniper weapon.

But assault rifles are still rifles? With carbine versions as well. It's not as if adding the "assault" part of the designation changes the "rifle" part. Full power manually operated rifles are not a thing, but the weapons that replaced them are still rifles.

[AdAstra]

Re: rifles.

In many modern armies, the assignment of carbines and rifles is reversed from the WWII conception.

The US, for instance, transitioned to the M4 carbine as it’s primary “rifle”. The first people to be issued were infantry and some other line types, gradually working its way through armor, artillery, etc. and only equipping logistics and clerks types last. The farther to the rear a unit is/was, the more M16 rifles and less M4 carbines it will have.

The marines, by a mix of both their own culture and being second place in navy budgets, maintain more rifles in their frontline mix, but are also actively modernizing to mostly carbines.

If you look at Russian equipping, you are more likely to see carbine variant AKs in higher quality units - generally the higher the ration of “contract soldiers” (aka, not conscripts) the more carbinized AKs you’ll see.

As for this one, you're quite right. As far as I can tell, the reasons are basically the following.

-Assault rifles are pretty light and handy to begin with. The AK-74 especially has a barrel length of 16.3 in, which is basically carbine length already, and many variants have folding stocks to minimize length when stowed. So in many cases you could just issue rifles and not have any real issues.

-The need for compact firearms in frontline use has grown, due to a variety of factors including increased house-to-house fighting (or at least a greater recognition of its relevance).

-Cost. With new carbines coming in, and old rifles being phased out of frontline use, the obvious solution to equipping rear-line units and lower-priority personnel is to give them the rifles, or let them keep using the rifles they were already issued.

[Pauly]

The rifle is a backup? to what?

For a tank crew that sort of works, but not for infantry as I understand it.

The squad MG, and the anti-tank rocket.

By the end of WWI most British infantry were carrying spare magazines for the Lewis gun, and in WWII all of them were carrying spare mags for the Bren, and often carried extra PIAT rounds. The Germans went even further regards turning the function of the squad into a support system for the MG34/MG42.

[KineticDiplomat]

To expand on Pauli’s point in a modern context:

In western armies, squads mostly consist of two four man teams and a squad leader. Even assuming these were ever actually filled to 100% (they’re not - even when they’re at 100% manning) you would see in each team:

-A LMG. Some armies call them automatic rifles, but they’re really LMGs.
-A Rifle w/grenade launcher
-The team leader, who has a rifle. In theory. He sometimes carries the GL because of the excellent properties it has for marking and signaling.
-A rifle. This is the first guy to either be loaded down with extra stuff or not have his position filled. Or be designated the SDM and given a different rifle.

If we expand that out to a squad, yes, you theoretically have 5/9 members carrying pure rifles. Generally, the firepower comes from the other weapons, and the close assault capability comes from the riflemen.

Take it out to a platoon and you’ll have three rifle squads and one weapons squad which has two medium machineguns and two anti-tank missile systems. It never fights as a pure squad, and the reality of how much men can carry means if you actually want all four crew served weapons fully fuunctional and carrying enough ammo, you need to take men from somewhere. Plus the weapon squads get filled first from limited manpower.

On top of which, casualty collection parties with the PSG, special teams, and unglamorous details need to come from somewhere.

So of a theoretical max of 15 men in a 40 man platoon who’s primary purpose is to wield a rifle for its own sake, rather than work a radio, carry missiles, set up tripods, call in fires, etc. you’ll almost never see that many.

This is largely because firefights, contrary to gaming culture, largely devolve into throwing vast quantities of ammunition in the general direction of an enemy you can’t see very well. Which is not optimal for a rifle.

And when you get into the 50 yard band where small arms killing really happens unless someone obligingly attacks in your firepower, all the other job descriptions go out the window and whoever had a rifle uses it.

[Durkoala]

This isn't exactly a tactics question, but I'm hoping it's close enough.

I'm writing something where an old castle has had a lake form around it and not been flooded thanks to magic. However, if the magic goes away thanks to adventurers and the outer walls start to leak and give way, how long would they have to get to safety and what would happen when the walls crumble?

For details, the castle is a concentric castle with an outer wall roughly about 10-15 metres high and 3-4 wide and an inner wall 15-20m and the same width, with an integrated keep. The body of the keep is the same height as the inner wall, but it has five towers that stand about 30m tall. After decades to a century of abandonment, some of the inner walls may be crumbling and one of the keep's towers has fallen, but the artefact in the castle has kept the outer wall mostly intact and grown a forest between the inner and outer walls. The adventurers are in the keep when the artefact is turned off.

(I haven't worked out how wide the castle as a whole is yet, hope that's not too much trouble)

[Kaptin Keen]

This isn't exactly a tactics question, but I'm hoping it's close enough.

I'm writing something where an old castle has had a lake form around it and not been flooded thanks to magic. However, if the magic goes away thanks to adventurers and the outer walls start to leak and give way, how long would they have to get to safety and what would happen when the walls crumble?

For details, the castle is a concentric castle with an outer wall roughly about 10-15 metres high and 3-4 wide and an inner wall 15-20m and the same width, with an integrated keep. The body of the keep is the same height as the inner wall, but it has five towers that stand about 30m tall. After decades to a century of abandonment, some of the inner walls may be crumbling and one of the keep's towers has fallen, but the artefact in the castle has kept the outer wall mostly intact and grown a forest between the inner and outer walls. The adventurers are in the keep when the artefact is turned off.

(I haven't worked out how wide the castle as a whole is yet, hope that's not too much trouble)

I'm not going to claim to know anything about this, but - it seems it would mostly depend on climate. Mortar can withstand water for a long time (dependent on quality, I guess?!), but if the water freezes each winter, it's not going to take long at all. I'd guess a castle built from cut stone rather than rough would last a lot longer. Finally, I suppose the level of the water would play a role. Castles have moats, and for that reason alone, it would make sense for their foundations to be built to withstand the water.

[Random Sanity]

Castle walls (especially in large castles like the one you're describing) tend to be built as thick as possible - both to facilitate men fighting from the top of said wall, and to withstand catapult fire. You're looking at anywhere from 10 to 20 feet of solid material, partly masonry and partly medieval concrete. Water won't breach that easily, unless the castle has sunk to the point that the water is at or near the top of the wall.

What's most likely to give way is any gates. Wooden doors leave cracks for water to seep through, and a portcullis is mostly empty space as far as water's concerned. So how many gates are there, and how solid are they? That's what will determine how much time your party has to escape the deluge.

[Durkoala]

Castle walls (especially in large castles like the one you're describing) tend to be built as thick as possible - both to facilitate men fighting from the top of said wall, and to withstand catapult fire. You're looking at anywhere from 10 to 20 feet of solid material, partly masonry and partly medieval concrete. Water won't breach that easily, unless the castle has sunk to the point that the water is at or near the top of the wall.

What's most likely to give way is any gates. Wooden doors leave cracks for water to seep through, and a portcullis is mostly empty space as far as water's concerned. So how many gates are there, and how solid are they? That's what will determine how much time your party has to escape the deluge.

Right, I forgot to mention that the water is no less than a metre from the top of the outside wall by the time the party will find it (and has probably been that way for decades). At first sight, the castle looks more like an island with towers on it.

[Khedrac]

Just to further confuse, stone walls can absorb a surprising amount of water without being weakened very much. What this does affect though is how fast flooding will be - as if the walls are already full of water they leakage will be faster.

So the question is, "how damaged are the foundation walls?" If they are very damaged, then the castle will collapse in minutes, if they are fairly intact, then it could remains tanding for months. Equally the flooding could be minutes or days, it all depends on the degree of damage they have received.

[wilphe]

This is largely because firefights, contrary to gaming culture, largely devolve into throwing vast quantities of ammunition in the general direction of an enemy you can’t see very well.

Ironically despite hit points lack of "realism"; they could model this fairly well.

Because what you are doing is supressing their will to fight until they decide to leave (or surrender, or take cover before your assault), rather than flat out killing them.

This would however required gamers to understand that it's not necessary to "hit" someone in order to "damage" them

+++++++++

I don't know any system where combat works like that, but it would be more realistic than assessing penalties for shooting people in the eyeballs whilst dual wielding .50cal desert eagles.

[Pauly]

Right, I forgot to mention that the water is no less than a metre from the top of the outside wall by the time the party will find it (and has probably been that way for decades). At first sight, the castle looks more like an island with towers on it.

https://www.rt.com/news/410630-castl...r-lake-turkey/

The castle, if made of stone, will not collapse. If made of baked bricks (post high medieval fantasy technology) it will not collapse.

The only chance of it collapsing is if it is made of adobe bricks. Adobe brick castles, as far as I’m aware, only existed in pre-inca south America, and they could exist only because of the extremely low rainfall in the areas they were made in. Even then it won’t collapse quickly because the water has to seep in and cause the bricks to fail one by one and the interior bricks will be kept dry until the exterior brick immediately in front of it falls away.