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

[snowblizz]

Having read this, Might I suggest considering to change your character to “Dangerous Game Hunter” rather than “military sniper”?

Sniping involves a lot of technical issues and involves hiding and waiting and taking a shot at 200~300m with a military rifle. Dangerous game hunting involves stalking a target to 5 or 10 meters and then using a much more powerful ‘stopping’ rifle.
Also socially big game hunters are generally drawn from the upper middle class whereas the typical sniper is more commonly drawn from the backswood peasant class.

From a RPG perspective a dangerous game hunter might be a better fit on the tactical battlefield and in social situations.

The two are not necessarily separate categories though. Simo Häyhä, the most famous sniper on youtube (at least fees like it sometimes), learnt his craft as a hunter. Which is quite common really.
For a less technical sniper, I would go for the squad marksman. That is the guy in a squad that was good at marksmanship, but not extensively trained as a sniper team member. Would usually get a marksman oriented rifle (if such exists), sometimes an older bolt-action, or an assault rifle with a scope all depending a bit on time and place.

Obviously it's less than trivial to combined these. The character starts out as someone who was a hunter in civilian life and as a natural marksman was designated to that position in a squad without necessarily going through sniperschool.

[Martin Greywolf]

However, I would like to incoporate some real world tactics into my roleplay and combat decisions. To that end, I'm wondering if the experts on this thread have any suggested reading on the topic? I'm particularily interested in the role a sniper should play on a team, general combat tactics, and countersniper tactics (in case the baddies decide to recruit one too).

Unfortunately for all of us, DnD is notoriously bad at that sort of thing, it has its own set of simulationist rules that largely override what would happen in real life (whether or not shoggoths would be involved).

The best thing I can think of to do is to base your gameplan on manipulating concealement and cover - turning over tables (it gets you a concealment, even against a machinegun), leaning from behind corners, using the hell out of prone condition, that sort of thing. For tactics against enemies, destroy their cover (alchemical fire, maybe? many tables let fire destroy objects far faster than it would) and... that's about it. DnD doesn't really model covering fire, unless there is some rule about making ranged AoOs I'm unaware of.

Just... talk to your DM about this first, I've seen some DMs get incredibly salty at players for using cover rules.

[SleepyShadow]

Before you do anything else, have a chat with your DM about your intentions. The chances are good that they will know about as much as you do about how snipers work, or, once you have read some of the suggestions, less than you do. At this point trying to apply some of the theory you have learned will just make things worse!

If you and the DM agree about what sort of thing your character is trained in and what it can do (with humans) then the DM won't mind you spouting more technical information (which adds useful colour if you are able to keep it brief) and you will know that the DM has a fair idea of what you are trying to do and is applying the circumstances fairly (i.e. if it doesn't work on these opponents there's probably a good reason other than the DM didn't understand what you were trying to achieve).
Also, if you and the DM agree on what you are trying to do, it doesn't matter if the methods ascribed to your character are completely wrong in real life - they are what works (normally) in the game world.

Hi, I'm the GM in question. Have no fear, I know quite a bit on the subject of sniping, and on the military in general. I'm not worried about D4 knowing more than I do on the subject.

Unfortunately for all of us, DnD is notoriously bad at that sort of thing, it has its own set of simulationist rules that largely override what would happen in real life (whether or not shoggoths would be involved).

The best thing I can think of to do is to base your gameplan on manipulating concealement and cover - turning over tables (it gets you a concealment, even against a machinegun), leaning from behind corners, using the hell out of prone condition, that sort of thing. For tactics against enemies, destroy their cover (alchemical fire, maybe? many tables let fire destroy objects far faster than it would) and... that's about it. DnD doesn't really model covering fire, unless there is some rule about making ranged AoOs I'm unaware of.

Just... talk to your DM about this first, I've seen some DMs get incredibly salty at players for using cover rules.

I don't have a problem with cover/concealment, especially since the enemy will be using it as well. On the subject of covering fire, D20 Modern has decent rules for it which I'm adapting for the game.

[Vinyadan]

Young men where expected to go out in the world before settling. They need to gain wealth, reputation and connections. Sort of going to university, but with much more sailing and plundering and trading.
How to start: If your father was wealthy they could equip a ship for you (and your brothers). If your father was not as rich but still wealthy, he could buy a "a part" in a ship. How this worked is not described in details. If he a normal farmer, he could buy "a seat" in a ship. Sometimes it is a seat in a ship of a local chieftain's ship, but there is many Sagas of buying a seat in Norwegian and even Danish ships for Icelanders.

Some ships where mainly doing raiding some mainly trading, but even a ship mainly focusing on trading could supplement with raiding if need be. Any raiding-crew also conducted trading, as whatever plunder you got was not likely exactly what you wanted/needed, so you would go to trading centres an an sell/trade the loot.

Some of the sons of chieftains joined a king/earl to be "their man" and conduct their work. There are tales of putting down revolt but also missions to collect taxes of the Sami-tribes or tributes from distant earls. Most are working for the Norwegian King (as the closest king), but there are examples of Icelanders joining Danish and Swedish kings as well, and even Norse kings in England as well as at least one example of joining a Anglo-Saxon king.

Some also worked as Scalds for kings, this could be done even if you did not have your own ship, but was a way to move up in the world.

Others seem to work completely freelance.

The end goal was to go home and settle, using whatever loot you got to get a place in society. Going out was a way to secure you place in society or even rise on the social ladder. Most seem to been away 3-8 years, though some stayed longer and some settled other countries, and some just like being a Viking so much that they went at it full time. Especially younger sons might be tempted to gain their fortune somewhere elsewhere (all sones inherited, but at least in soem Sagas the older son got the farm, the younger the ship, the last the swords and some wealth/money and so on).

Would serving the Eastern Roman Emperor factor in as one of these options?

[AllHailthed4]

A Rifleman Went to War by Herbert McBride is a great autobiography of one of the men who pioneered sniping in WWI which would be appropriate for your era.

Or if you just want a manual, it's hard to beat the Marine Corps Scout Sniper Manual

“Enemy at the Gates” by William Craig has some fery good sections on Soviet sniping and encompasses a biography of Vasily Zaytzev who was the most famous Soviet sniper of WW2. The movie on the other hand bears little resemblance to true history, especially the personality/character of the snipers. There is a lot in the book about the seige of Stalingrad which you can skip over.

Another book I’d recommend is”Man Eaters of Kumaon” by Jim Corbett. While this book is about hunting man eating tigers, and differs from sniping in that he stalked the tigers to much closer distances than those snipers engage at, it’s a very good source on how to observe nature and to make logical deductions on how to find your prey.

Most Hollywood films would have you believe marksmanship and weapons handling are the prime requisites for sniping. In reality the mental side of being able to kill in cold blood and patience along with ability to observe nature are more important.

Some Field Manuals from the era that may be of use
US Scouting manual from 1944
https://archive.org/details/FM21-75

USMC Sniping Manual from 1981 (a little past your timeframe but most of it should still br relavent
https://archive.org/details/milmanua...ge/n1/mode/2up

British Sniping and Fieldcraft manual from 1942
https://www.compasslibrary.com/produ...elligence-1942

Australian Army Sniper Manual.
http://afd-gaming.com/training/manua...per_Manual.pdf

I'll definitely give these a look! I don't suppose there are any manuals from the Eastern Bloc (that have been translated)?

Having read this, Might I suggest considering to change your character to “Dangerous Game Hunter” rather than “military sniper”?

Sniping involves a lot of technical issues and involves hiding and waiting and taking a shot at 200~300m with a military rifle. Dangerous game hunting involves stalking a target to 5 or 10 meters and then using a much more powerful ‘stopping’ rifle.
Also socially big game hunters are generally drawn from the upper middle class whereas the typical sniper is more commonly drawn from the backswood peasant class.

From a RPG perspective a dangerous game hunter might be a better fit on the tactical battlefield and in social situations.

The character is a backwoods peasant, lol. The party has plenty of charismatic faces, so I figured I'd introduce a little earthy common sense.

The two are not necessarily separate categories though. Simo Häyhä, the most famous sniper on youtube (at least fees like it sometimes), learnt his craft as a hunter. Which is quite common really.
For a less technical sniper, I would go for the squad marksman. That is the guy in a squad that was good at marksmanship, but not extensively trained as a sniper team member. Would usually get a marksman oriented rifle (if such exists), sometimes an older bolt-action, or an assault rifle with a scope all depending a bit on time and place.

Obviously it's less than trivial to combined these. The character starts out as someone who was a hunter in civilian life and as a natural marksman was designated to that position in a squad without necessarily going through sniperschool.

Simo Haya was definitely an inspiration, along with Lyudmilla Pavlichenko

The squad marksman idea might be good as a starting point. It's definitely in line with the character's backstory, and gives them plenty of room to grow as the campaign progresses.

Unfortunately for all of us, DnD is notoriously bad at that sort of thing, it has its own set of simulationist rules that largely override what would happen in real life (whether or not shoggoths would be involved).

The best thing I can think of to do is to base your gameplan on manipulating concealement and cover - turning over tables (it gets you a concealment, even against a machinegun), leaning from behind corners, using the hell out of prone condition, that sort of thing. For tactics against enemies, destroy their cover (alchemical fire, maybe? many tables let fire destroy objects far faster than it would) and... that's about it. DnD doesn't really model covering fire, unless there is some rule about making ranged AoOs I'm unaware of.

That's very true. To clarify, I plan to use what I learn as a background from which to draw inspiration rather than rigid manual. If a combat scenario gives me time to set up a concealed position, then I'll take the opportunity to show off a bit. If not, then that's what a sidearm and hitpoints are for

I will definitely use your suggestions about creating cover and using the prone condition, and may invest in some alchemical fire (or use radio contact to direct the wizard's fireballs?)

Thanks for the help!

[Berenger]

Thanks for the answers regarding vikings.

I'm asking because I'm going to GM a viking RPG, so while I'm generally interested in historical facts, educated guesses are good enough for my purposes when there are no applicable sources.

[Tobtor]

Would serving the Eastern Roman Emperor factor in as one of these options?

Yes. This would be the "Some of the sons of chieftains joined a king/earl to be "their man"", category. The emperor just being a very powerfull "king". Harald Hardrada was serving the Bysantine emperor, and at least to his mind this was that sort of arrengement. When he left he used the earned loot to get power back home (he gave half the loot to his brother King Magnus to be appointed co-King of Norway).

[Pauly]

I'll definitely give these a look! I don't suppose there are any manuals from the Eastern Bloc (that have been translated)?

The character is a backwoods peasant, lol. The party has plenty of charismatic faces, so I figured I'd introduce a little earthy common sense.

Simo Haya was definitely an inspiration, along with Lyudmilla Pavlichenko

The squad marksman idea might be good as a starting point. It's definitely in line with the character's backstory, and gives them plenty of room to grow as the campaign progresses.

That's very true. To clarify, I plan to use what I learn as a background from which to draw inspiration rather than rigid manual. If a combat scenario gives me time to set up a concealed position, then I'll take the opportunity to show off a bit. If not, then that's what a sidearm and hitpoints are for

Thanks for the help!

I’m unaware of any Eastern bloc sniping manuals that have been translated, but I think you’d have better luck in a shooting/sniping forum than here. However as I understand it there is little difference in the technical sniping side of the training, although deployment may have been different between East and West.
“Enemy at the Gates” does cover Lyudmilla Pavlichenko, but more as a side character to Zaytzev.

A very informative youtube video on Simo Hayha https://youtu.be/3XzmCQUPyTM

This other channel has a lot of videos about rifles from the era and sniping tactics, and is run by a (claimed) modern sniper. I haven’t found anything he said or claims to be egregiously wrong and his shooting appears to be consistent with what he says his training is so I’m inclined to believe his claims. This video in particular has a really good breakdown of the limits of sniping in your target era.
https://youtu.be/YqK6CMqGuMs

Edit to add.
As for counter-sniping there are 2 things.
Firstly on a battlefield there are a whole lot of eyeballs observing a whole lot of areas from a whole lot of directions. Most snipers were spotted by a random dude on the other side who happened to be looking at the right place at the right time, hence the practice of relocating after one or two shots from a position.
Secondly in the rare instance of sniper duels fieldcraft was king. Being able to hide better than the other guy and being able to observe better than the other guy usually determined the matter. The other less common way was to induce the other sniper into making a shot and thus revealing his position, either by providing a suitably realistic dummy target (helmet on a stick) or through a volunteer providing a live target. This second method depended on having a good idea as to the enemy sniper’s position. Marksmanship almost never came into it because both shooters were already at a very high level.

As for roleplaying, I think that Clint Eastwood’s character in Gran Torino is a very good representation of the mentality of most snipers* I have read about . Yeah? I’ll blow a hole in your face and then go in the house... and sleep like a baby. You can count on that. We used to stack ****s like you five feet high in Korea... use ya for sandbags. . They don’t talk much not because they are shy or anti-social, but more because they don’t see the point of small talk. They tend to be see problem -> fix problem people, not inclined to discuss what everybody else thinks or seek validation of their plans from others.
* I know his character isn’t meant to be a sniper, but it is more consistent with how real snipers thought and acted than say Jude Law’s character in “Enemy at the Gates”.

[Martin Greywolf]

I’m unaware of any Eastern bloc sniping manuals that have been translated, but I think you’d have better luck in a shooting/sniping forum than here. However as I understand it there is little difference in the technical sniping side of the training, although deployment may have been different between East and West.
“Enemy at the Gates” does cover Lyudmilla Pavlichenko, but more as a side character to Zaytzev.

Unless you find those translated manuals, assume everything about Eastern Front is not true. We really, really can't go into why this is because of forum rules, so that's where I'll end my advice.

[NRSASD]

So I’m thinking of running a short campaign set in the French Revolution, circa 1780-ish. What kinds of weapons would a particularly ambitious band of revolutionaries plausibly have access to if they looted a royal armory?

Here’s what I have so far. Let me know what other broad classes of weapons should exist/what categories should be subdivided because significant differences exist. I’m aiming for verisimilitude, not strict accuracy (I would prefer to use “assault rifle” rather than “M-16”; I want generic classes of weapon rather than specific models.)

Guns: Musket, rifle, pistol, blunderbuss
Swords: Sabre, rapier, small sword (like artillery-crew utility blades)
Polearms: improvised, halberd, pike
Daggers: knife, dagger, (fencing dagger?)
Other melee: axe, club, great axe, great club
Explosives: grenade, incendiary cocktail

As always, thanks for your help in advance!

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I'll see what I can come up with.

Guns: Musket, rifle, pistol, blunderbuss

You could split pistol in a smaller and more covert infantry/dueling type of pistol and a larger cavalry type of pistol, sometimes with more of a blunderbuss style barrel for reloading on horseback. Although I'm honestly not sure if those were still a thing by this time. Also possibly too detailed.

Swords: Sabre, rapier, small sword (like artillery-crew utility blades)

The small sword I know was a lighter version of the rapier, used as a civilian and fencing weapon, although I'm sure that if you found they were used by artillery crews that's the case. Maybe, if you're looking in the utility blade direction, add some cutlass/machete like blade too. There's probably a more period appropriate French word for it, but the cheap durable weapon of commoners, adventurers and sailors alike, basically.

Polearms: improvised, halberd, pike

Go as nuts here as you like. There were a lot of polearms. Although category wise the important one to keep separated is probably the pike. They were a big deal. As a cross between this category and the sword you could consider some sort of a greatsword/zweihander.

Daggers: knife, dagger, (fencing dagger?)

A main gauche/trident dagger/sword breaker/left hand dagger would be a kind of cool addition if you can make it distinct. More for fencing than for military use though. Common alternatives as a left hand weapon are a buckler and a cape. Although this general style of fencing was rapidly being replaced with the modern one handed style.

Other melee: axe, club, great axe, great club
Explosives: grenade, incendiary cocktail

Actually, the most important addition I can do is probably this: just from a military point of view we're pretty solidly inside the age of the gun here. I know I just said pikes were a big deal, but that mostly kind of ended 100 years before this point. Most infantrymen would have a musket or some other form of gun with a bayonet, and as a backup probably often a rapier, or maybe a messer or something. Maybe a smallsword plus a pistol for an officer. For cavalry there's pistols, sabers and lances (which made a return ones bayonets had replaced pikes).

[Pauly]

So I’m thinking of running a short campaign set in the French Revolution, circa 1780-ish. What kinds of weapons would a particularly ambitious band of revolutionaries plausibly have access to if they looted a royal armory?

Here’s what I have so far. Let me know what other broad classes of weapons should exist/what categories should be subdivided because significant differences exist. I’m aiming for verisimilitude, not strict accuracy (I would prefer to use “assault rifle” rather than “M-16”; I want generic classes of weapon rather than specific models.)

Guns: Musket, rifle, pistol, blunderbuss
Swords: Sabre, rapier, small sword (like artillery-crew utility blades)
Polearms: improvised, halberd, pike
Daggers: knife, dagger, (fencing dagger?)
Other melee: axe, club, great axe, great club
Explosives: grenade, incendiary cocktail

As always, thanks for your help in advance!

Just to clarify they are looting a French arsenal, not any other country’s?
.

[NRSASD]

Just to clarify they are looting a French arsenal, not any other country’s?
.

Correct. They’re going to be heroes of the revolution, so urban citizens who got their hands on an arsenal. As far as training/proficiency goes, some of them might be NCO deserters. French colonials would be allowed, but otherwise everyone will be French.

@Level2 Expert- having done a bit more digging, I’m going to replace rapier with epee (the classy French small sword), and small swords with short swords to cover the whole gamut of artillery swords, swords bayonets, and militarized machetes.

Regarding pikes, I know they’re very out of date given the era from a battlefield perspective, but I’m pretty sure they were still a pretty common weapon for revolutionaries when they couldn’t find a gun. Something long and sharp is always useful in these circumstances. Did the French royal forces use polearms for crowd control in this era?

Regarding lances, you’re right, those should totally exist. I’m not sure if the players will ever find a horse though… I’m not expecting the players to leave the urban area.

[Gnoman]

If looting a government arsenal, there's a real chance they'd have some oddball guns available. Karkhoff repeaters saw very limited adoption, for example, but most countries bought at least a few of them for trials. I can't find any evidence that the French used the Giradoni Air Rifle, but the time period fits and it wouldn't be impossible to justify.

[Saint-Just]

Do you mean "royal" as in something that king's family and guests use or just more appropriate way to say "government"? If the second then the army arsenals shouldn't really have rifles - they definitely weren't a mass-issued weapon at that time.

Also you definitely wouldn't find "incendiary cocktails" pre-packaged. I am under impression that liquid incendiaries in general became widespread only later, in that period it was mostly rockets and shells, not infantry weapons.

[Vinyadan]

About polearms, there are some images of the King's Guard holding them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guards the one on the left is an officer however, so it could have had a non-fighting function. Also, that's an image from 30 years before the Revolution. In representations of fights between the king's forces and the revolutionaries, the pikes are generally held by the sans-culottes, because it was one of their symbols. It was so important, that it started popping up in topography (stuff like "Place des Piques"), and even as person name (a child was given the name "Marat-Couthon-Pique"), so it could have been a matter of emphasis, but pikes were certainly seen as antiquated in the king's military, and hadn't been used in the field for something like a century.

The guards closest to the king, the gardes de la manche (those who "touched his sleeve" because of how close they were to him) also are represented with a polearm in reconstructions of their dress in revolutionary times https://www.authentic-costumes.com/p...-manche-du-roy https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...Patas06120.jpg Of course, there was a ceremonial function, but they were supposed to act if things went wrong, and were drawn from the soldiers of the Scottish Guard, not from the rather unskilled nobles of the Life Guards.

I didn't find much about how policing was dealt with in those times, however (I saw that there is a book about it, but I haven't read it). From the images, a policeman (a member of the marèchaussée) carried a stick, a gun, and a sword, and often was mounted.

I also couldn't find what would probably have been the best answer: an inventory of some weapon depot in the days of Louis XVI. On a more general level, the looting of the Hospital of the Invalids got 3,000 rifles and a few cannons (or, according the 1842 Britannica, "upwards of 30,000 stands of arms and 20 pieces of cannon"; I don't know why there are such massive discrepancies between sources), and the Bastille contained large quantities of powder; cannons were also taken from both the Hotel de Ville and the Bastille. J. Humbert, one of the attackers of the Bastille, recorded that, before he got there, he was given a rifle at the Invalides and powder at the Hotel de Ville, but no shot, and he had to buy some small nails to load his gun; before these places were taken, he and other citizens patrolled their districts armed only with swords, because the districts had no firearms. They also looted the shops of armorers and cutlers (a representation).

There is a funny thing (and related to odd pieces), Humbert describes some previously dismantled small cannons being used against the Bastille, one of them with silver inlays. This one has been identified with a Siamese cannon gifted to Louis XIV by the King of Siam in 1684. https://royalartillerymuseum.com/new...month-february It was held in the palace currently known as Hotel de la Marine and considered forniture, until it was looted and put to use again. During the same event, the crowd got some parade swords and pikes, which I guess are the ones on which two heads were paraded after the Bastille was taken, unless they came from soldiers who helped conduct the assault (the man then in charge of the building deliberately led the people directly to the weapon hall, to keep them away from the really valuable stuff like the jewels, which were stolen a few years later).

Another funny detail, the keys of the Bastille had a great symbolic meaning, so they were paraded around after the victory: people forgot that they were necessary to free the prisoners, so their cell doors had to be smashed open.

Contemporary sources also describe the carriages of aristocrats being searched before the attack and finding weapons in them; this would have been part of some conspiracy, which involved hoarding both weapons and grain to increase its price during an already bad year. I don't know how reliable this is (hearsay...), but it could be interesting for a game.

[Mr Beer]

They might get some armour: cuirass were still used by cavalry and I guess some simple helmets.

Also barrels of gunpowder, slow match and small cannon - or large cannon if you want.

EDIT

Looks like this musket was a standard French infantry weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleville_musket

And this link seems to be a primer on the kind of artillery the French would have used at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gribeauval_system

[AdAstra]

Depending on how much granularity you want, it may be good to separate out hatchets, particularly more utility-oriented ones, and larger axes. Similarly, carbines/musketoons might be a useful subdivision of muskets.

There might be some hand mortars,capable of firing the hand grenades of the time, but they were not a very popular weapon (if they misfired, you still had a lit grenade in the gun). But bad ideas are fine to have sometimes.

In terms of artillery the heroes are likely to be able to use personally, Coehorn mortars, swivel guns, and wall pieces are reasonable options for the period. They're relatively portable as artillery goes, the wall piece especially being essentially a giant musket, though one you'd want to brace thoroughly before firing. If the players have any wagons they should be able to transport them without much difficulty, and it gives them some extra firepower to break out should they need it.

[fusilier]

So I'm thinking of running a short campaign set in the French Revolution, circa 1780-ish. What kinds of weapons would a particularly ambitious band of revolutionaries plausibly have access to if they looted a royal armory?

Here's what I have so far. Let me know what other broad classes of weapons should exist/what categories should be subdivided because significant differences exist. I'm aiming for verisimilitude, not strict accuracy (I would prefer to use “assault rifle” rather than M-16”; I want generic classes of weapon rather than specific models.)

Guns: Musket, rifle, pistol, blunderbuss

Musket (and bayonet!) of course. The French don't seem to have adopted any military rifles during this period, instead preferring smoothbore muskets for their light infantry. A Dragoon musket (a shorter version of the standard musket) was used for a while.

Military blunderbusses existed, but I think they were more of a naval item. You might want to consider a carbine/musketoon instead, both cavalry and sappers carried them.

Swords: Sabre, rapier, small sword (like artillery-crew utility blades)

having done a bit more digging, IÂ’m going to replace rapier with epee (the classy French small sword), and small swords with short swords to cover the whole gamut of artillery swords, swords bayonets, and militarized machetes.

For short sword, what you are looking for is a "sabre-briquet", a short, curved sword with a fairly wide blade. The British might call something similar a "hanger." Intended for foot troops (infantry and foot artillery), they were usually simple, NCOs and elite units would carry them. The later "artillery short sword" wasn't adopted until 1816.

Polearms: improvised, halberd, pike

In the 18th century halberds were carried by Sergeants, and partisans (spontoons?) were sometimes carried by junior officers. It's basically a spear or half-pike. I think this practice may have already fallen out of fashion by the time of the revolution, but I suspect a bunch of them were in arsenals in either case.

Daggers: knife, dagger, (fencing dagger?)

Not sure how many of these would have been common in an arsenal (maybe some ancient plug bayonets were still lying around), but knives and daggers were usually a personal purchase item, and not hard to find. Socket bayonets should be in abundance, of course.

Other melee: axe, club, great axe, great club

Felling axes (for pioneers), and hatchets for various work I think were common in military stores. Artillery trail-spikes make good improvised clubs. And the various other artillery implements (rammer, sponges, worm), are effectively staff weapons.

Explosives: grenade, incendiary cocktail

Grenades yes. They are often made from small artillery shells. Not sure about incendiary cocktails -- a good artillery store might have the stuff needed for making something like a carcass (a kind of flare like projectile), but it would be the materials to make one, rather than have it made it up ahead of time and stored.

Perhaps rockets? I don't know much about the history of French military rockets, I believe they fielded some later in the Napoleonic wars.

[Pauly]

British and Austro-Hunfarians are my bag in thus period. I have a bit if a smattering about the French though.

Pre-revolutionary officers were expected to pay for and provide their personal side arms, so officer’s pistols, spadroons (military small swords), cavalry sabers and so on would not be found in the arsenal,

The French never adopted a rifle. The loss of rate of fire was held to be a bigger drawback than benefit of accuracy. The Girondi air rifle was a state secret of the Austro-Hungarians and there is zero chance of the French having acquired any.

Carbines (short muskets) were used by the dragoons, pioneers and artillery. Possibly different patterns for each service.
Speaking of pioneers they carried felling axes and puck axes and so on, which were 100% tools and 0% weapons.

Cavalry swords were basically curved sabers for the light cavalry and long straight sabers for the heavy cavalry. The heavy cavalry full cuirass and helmet would also be found in the arsenals. Cavalry also carried cavalry pistols which weren’t as finely made as the officer’s weapons. I can’t recall if pre-revolutionary France had lance equipped regiments, but they did have lances by 1800.

NCOs were issued with a cutlass type sword, often called a hanger in British sources. Half pikes and halberds were issued to junior officers and senior NCOs, but my reading is that they were a parade duty item only in this era.

[ShurikVch]

Have two questions for which I have some problems to find answers:

1. Before the iron (steel) armor, armor material was bronze. OK. But - what kinds of armor were made of it?
2. Before the gunpowder artillery - what was the armament of warships? Were they armed at all? Where I can read/watch about it?

[Catullus64]

Have two questions for which I have some problems to find answers:

1. Before the iron (steel) armor, armor material was bronze. OK. But - what kinds of armor were made of it?

To cite a more well-documented example of bronze defensive armaments, take a look at Greek hoplites. Since they were citizen-soldiers whose kit had to be provided out of their own property, I think that the places which they prioritized armoring in bronze are revealing. Generally, if nothing else on the body is armored in bronze, the head will be. The shield usually also has a thin facing of bronze. Wealthier hoplites would go in for either bronze reinforcements to their primarily textile body armor, or the fully bronze cuirass. Bronze greaves were not unheard of, since the lower legs are one of the body parts least protected by the shield.

Bronze scale armor has also been found; I'm not aware of any examples of bronze mail.

[Thane of Fife]

Have two questions for which I have some problems to find answers:

1. Before the gunpowder artillery - what was the armament of warships? Were they armed at all? Where I can read/watch about it?

The Eastern Roman Empire was famous for using flamethrowers on their ships (see Greek Fire), but I believe the most common forms of fighting done from ships would have been arrow fire, boarding, and (on some ships) rams.

The idea of a forecastle or aftercastle on a ship comes from this period, with the "castle" providing a strong defensive position from which to repel boarders and which would provide a high vantage point to shoot from.

[fusilier]

Have two questions for which I have some problems to find answers:
. . .
Before the gunpowder artillery - what was the armament of warships? Were they armed at all? Where I can read/watch about it?

Underwater rams were used in the classical period, but fell out of favor in the middle ages. Boarding was the main way of fighting another ship. Grappling hooks were common to lash the ships together for a boarding fight. Rocks and javelins would be thrown from the fighting tops (like a crow's nest). Other than that most fighting would be with the expected personal weapons: swords, spears, bows, crossbows, etc. Some heavy weapons were used, like large crew served crossbows, but they don't seem to have been intended for destroying the enemy ship at range.

Oh, and fire! Fire could be dangerous though if the ships were grappled and couldn't be freed. Famously, at the battle of Zonchio (1499), when two Venetian sailing ships had fought an inconclusive boarding action with the Ottoman flagship, the Venetians turned to using fire. But it turned against them and all three ships burned and sank.

Note: "arming" a ship, often included putting soldiers on it for fighting, and not, necessarily, fitting it with heavy weapons.

I haven't read many works that focus on the pre-gunpowder era. If you can find a copy of John F. Guilmartin's Galleons and Galleys, I would take a look at it. While focused on the development of gunpowder weapons at sea, it covers the transition from pre-gunpowder to gunpowder, and gives a good introduction to the late pre-gunpowder form of naval combat. A fairly easy read, and well illustrated.

[Mechalich]

Before the iron (steel) armor, armor material was bronze. OK. But - what kinds of armor were made of it?

So this is a bit tricky. There has been relatively little metal armor uncovered from the Bronze Age. A few examples, such as the Dendra panoply exist, but they are rare, and it is difficult if not impossible to tell if artistic depictions imply metal versus textile armors (especially with scale/lamellar). Most of the examples of bronze armor we actually possess, whether its Greek Hoplite cuirasses, Chinese lamellar coats, or Roman scale armor are from the Iron Age and existed alongside armor made of iron, often exactly the same pieces. For example, there are iron hoplite cuirasses as well as bronze ones.

[Satinavian]

Have two questions for which I have some problems to find answers:[*]Before the iron (steel) armor, armor material was bronze. OK. But - what kinds of armor were made of it?

The really important benefit iron brought to the table was being way cheaper and available in larger quantities.

Among other things that means that before iron, it was less the case that bronce was used for armor in place of iron and more that metal armor as such was far more rare/prestigious and people generally used the bronce for weapons only and other materials for armor.
It also means that even when people made bronce armor pieces, they often were unique and there is little in widespread bronce armor styles and types. Bronce scale armor might have existed to some extend, mostly because it is easy to get there from the non-metal version by just changing the material of the scales.

[Gnoman]

The most concrete description I've seen of bronze armor in the literature is the equipment assigned to Goliath.

A champion named Goliath, who was from Gath, came out of the Philistine camp. His height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head and wore a coat of scale armor of bronze weighing five thousand shekels; on his legs he wore bronze greaves, and a bronze javelin was slung on his back. His spear shaft was like a weaver’s rod, and its iron point weighed six hundred shekels

[Martin Greywolf]

For bronze age Homeric armor, see this article. It's pretty well-supported, cites sources and so on. I'm not sure I agree with horned helmet as non-ceremonial piece, but then and again, sengoku jidai kabuto are a thing that exists, so...

[Spamotron]

Have two questions for which I have some problems to find answers:

1. Before the iron (steel) armor, armor material was bronze. OK. But - what kinds of armor were made of it?
2. Before the gunpowder artillery - what was the armament of warships? Were they armed at all? Where I can read/watch about it?

The most thorough layman's overview of ancient naval artillery I know of is this interview on Drachinfel's channel. Drach basically pioneered naval history on YouTube and he vets his sources and guests quite well.

[Pauly]

As for bronze armor, the usual caveats about when/where apply. Also important is that this is the start of metal armor making and design in human history, so techniques and designs had to be developed from scratch.

The earliest bronze armors seem to have been bronze plates curved to fit around the body, like a very crude lorica segmentata. Whatever protection it gave would have come to cost of serious impairment to mobility.
Later scale armor seems to have been the preferred method utilizing bronze in armor.
Greaves to protect the shins appear to have been common, and bracers to protect the forearms are known to exist.
Finally the bronze cuirass was developed, although these appear to have been contemporaneous with the iron age.
From what I have read there was no bronze mail, or at the very least no widespread adoption of mail.

Regarding ship armament. Again the usual caveats about when/where apply.
Rams were important in galley warfare, although they weren’t universally adopted across time and space.
Marines were the most common “armament” carried. Along with the marines came various methods to aid boarding and fighting. The Romans developed the corvus boarding ramp. It was common for ships to be lashed together to provide stable fighting platforms, and some naval battles were more like land battles on floating platforms.
Archers were carried, and were considered as separate and different category to marines. Archers being unarmored and not expected to contribute much in hand to hand fighting where marines were seen as boarding experts.
Artillery such as ballistae (aka bolt throwers) could be carried. It is important to note these were considered long range anti-personnel devices, not anti-ship devices. There are some suggestions catapults could have been used, but considering range and accuracy makes me think this is more wishful thinking than anything else. Finally on rare occasions trebuchets were fitted for sieges. This was rare and definitely not for fighting other ships.
The use of fire as a weapon was a huge problem, because all ships were highly flammable and you didn’t want that fire to get loose on your own ships. The Byzantines developed Greek fire, which is something of a mystery to this day, but appears to have been an early flamethrower. Gunpowder grenades were developed and in the naval context were an incendiary device, if nit a particularly effective one. Fire ships were a tried and tested method, their use was predominantly against ships moored together in harbor.