Results 451 to 480 of 1478
-
2021-03-28, 06:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Shields generally aren’t designed to prevent punch through, with the exception of pavises. They are much lighter than most modern people suppose.
The Sheer amount of material to cut through blocks cuts. Thrusts are protected against by diverting the thrust away. Obviously I’m casting a very wide net and there will be plenty of examples do things differently, one obvious exception being the jousting shield..
-
2021-03-28, 07:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
- Location
- Right Behind You
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
So it is difficult to create a hard and fast rule for "what will safe you from a bullet"
Stopping/deflecting a bullet is a complex mathematical equation in which, type of material, angle of impact, thickness of material, distance of travel from shooter, weight to bullet, quantity of powder behind bullet, shape of bullet, quality of powder behind bullet, amount of give in the impact area, exact weather conditions, and several other factors are all variables.
Historically, bullets have been stopped or deflected by a significant number of improbable things, and have and have at times failed to be stopped by things designed to stop them. It's less a question of exactly what "Will" stop a bullet and more a question of what improves your odds and how lucky you are at any given point.
Suffice to say. A foot soldier with a shield between him and the bullet has a better chance than one that does not, but without having information on quite a few more variables than just the presence or non presence of a shield, it would be impossible to comment on to what degree.
It is entirely possible that say, a foot soldier wearing a cheap munition's breastplate, which would not on its own stop a bullet, might survive if the bullet first hit his shield, expended energy going through it, and then impacted his armor at a less than ideal angle. It is also entirely reasonable to say that it wouldn't make enough of a difference.Warning, this poster makes frequent use of jokes, snarks, and puns. He is mostly harmless and intends no offense.
-
2021-03-28, 10:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Gender
-
2021-03-28, 07:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
They may have had more of a psychological effect among different groups at different times. I heard that during WW2, Germans would get nervous if they saw *Americans* fixing bayonets, because Americans did so very, very rarely at that time, it was a signal they meant serious business.
Americans generally seem to have been less likely to fix bayonets than their European counterparts throughout history. During the American Civil War, if you saw the enemy approaching with fixed bayonets, you knew they at least *intended* to charge, rather than simply advancing to exchange close range volleys (intentions didn't always carry through, of course). At the same time, European infantry would have entered battle with bayonets fixed.Last edited by fusilier; 2021-03-28 at 07:08 PM.
-
2021-03-29, 12:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
How does the seating arrangement in a modern tank (say, an Abrams) work? Are some of the crew members rotating as the turret traverses?
-
2021-03-29, 03:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Cippa's River Meadow
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
For most modern MBTs, all the crew except for the driver are in sort of a hanging basket attached to the turret, so they rotate with the turret.
For the Challenger 2, the driver is lying almost prone in front of the tank:
Spoiler: Challey II Seating arrangement
The Abrams is much the same, but I believe the driver isn't as prone.
-
2021-03-29, 05:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
If you have someone like Fiore, or a member of a fencing guild that makes a living teaching fighting, they train several hours each day, with some exceptions when travelling or some such, for theit entire lives.
A more standard knight or noble, who spends a lot of time on politicking, administrative duties and so on will probably clock in at something like an hour a day? It really depends on circumstances, if he's travelling as part of king's retinue, it may be that little or even less, if he's assigned to a castle it will probably be more. A lot of this training will be hunting or mock unofficial tournaments and melees - problem is, no one recorded what they looked like, exactly, so we have very little data to go on.
Our best guess is "less that Fiore or Lichtenauer".
As for how long, well, their entire lives. They start at ~15 and never really stop, but the training is less intensive than modern courses. Many knights elected to travel around Europe for a year or a few to learn from foreign (not only) fighting styles, if they had the funds and the time.
I think it's fair to say a knight would be, at a minimum, at a level of an amateur boxer who takes his hobby pretty seriously.
You do see them as long as you see shields, but they also become far, far less common after ~1300 AD, and disappear from some roles entirely.
There are different types of shields within the same shape, meant to do different things. Even looking at viking round shields, some of them are very light and thin, others are much thicker. Some shields aren't meant to absorb ranged shots from front, others very much are. After all, a high poundage warbow can shoot clean through a standard kite shield and your mailed hand behind it. Let's also not forget that the above doesn't apply to large shields like kite and Roman, whose arguably main purpose was stopping missiles.
Pavaises also have handheld forms, some can be carried and others can't, pavaise is more about the shape of the shield, rather than the purpose for which it is made. As it is with all shield terminology, actually.
Then there were gun shields which were shields with integrated gun - they didn't work in practice because they were too heavy to use the gun properly with one hand.
And then there's this German 16th century bullet proof shield, complete with proofing mark and a hole from a bullet that almost made it through.
Spoiler: Front and back views
So, you can make a shield bulletproof against black powder weapons, especially inefficient black powder weapons. Or even against modern weapons.
But there will be drawbacks in cost (hardened steel instead of mild) or weight that you can't really avoid, and the latter especially limits how big you can make them while still being practical. And no matter what you do, a cannonball will kill you dead, shield or no shield. In general, it seems that once gunpowder weapons got popular, the preferred solution wasn't to get shields that were bulletproof, but rather to get more guys with firearms - which is reasonable once you realize that a shield can't cover all of you and repeated impacts are a problem.That which does not kill you made a tactical error.
-
2021-03-29, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Re: tanks.
There are two basic configurations, and one that is prototyping.
The one it sound like you’re interested in is the standard 4 man crew, common to western MBTs.
They run a driver separate in the hull, laying down in either a seat, or in most modern conversions, a blast hammock to improve survivability. While doing this the driver is reliant on his vision blocks (or, in a few cases, digital cameras feeding screens). For night time, he slots in appropriate thermals/light enhancement to the block. All of this comes at a price in overall awareness.
For easier driving, the driver can crank his seat up and drive with his head out of the hatch - not a great idea if contact is possible, but it certainly makes life easier and saves crew fatigue (the commander and loader don’t have to feed the driver awareness). Most modern tanks won’t allow you to traverse the turret in this configuration to avoid ripping his head off. They do have a commanders override though...
The turret is a three man set up, with the the center being dominated by the breach of the gun. It’s actually mostly open space until recoil, at which point it will shatter the bones of anyone caught in that space. Safety gates can be set up, and indeed will be in any live training event -informally, combat decisions may vary.
The loader has a seat that does double duty as a standing point for when he is riding out of the hatch. He has a comparatively spacious side of the tank to himself, framed by the radios (he doubles as the RTO for the vehicle beyond the pre-set channels everyone can toggle) and the ready rack storage doors behind him. When actually loading the gun he almost always just stands up on the floor of the turret to do it for better position, then gets back out of the way of the breech.
Standing, the loader is behind a machine gun on his side of the turret (and famously needs to remember not to shoot the barrel by mistake) covering his side of the tank and taking over junior TC duties. It is not uncommon for junior NCOs being groomed for the TC position to spend a lot of time in the loader position even though it’s actually manned by a very new soldier. He learns to direct the driver, manipulate the radio, and get a feel for what’s happening outside the tank. He is also way less likely to direct the driver into a ditch while the TC looks at a map, a screen, etc. Extra officers (an A/S3 for instance) may also grab the loader slot if moving with the tank, as it gives them radios and visibility while not demanding much technical proficiency.
Then we go to the other side of the turret. The tank commander has a seat/standing stool mix that allows him to either stand out of the turret for visibility and to man the commanders machine gun (older and the newest models can/must operate from inside)
When he drops down, he’ll have an array of control panels on the turret wall, as well as any additional computers the tank is carrying, a master control handle for the gun (or independent viewer), and an optics extension to let him look through the sights. He is staggered with the gunner, so sitting down will put the gunners head between his legs. Comedy ensues. Sat down he is reliant on vision blocks and optics, so many TCs prefer to leave the hatch in at least open-protected unless they absolutely have to button up completely.
And the we come to the poor cramped gunner. He is on line with the TC seat but lower, the breech to his side and a diverse array of fire control computers, screens, and switches for gun options on the turret wall to his front and side, and of course the primary optic extension, back up sight, coax mount, and hand cranks for the turret. Easily the most cramped position on the tank, and no standing up - the sight doubles as a convenient brow rest for napping.
As a final caveat, by spinning the turret on some tanks, you can open a narrow access between the turret and the driver. Theoretically for pulling the driver out when evacuation by his hatch is impractical, it’s say to day use is allowing the turret crew to poke the driver with a stick if he falls asleep or his commo helmet disconnects without him noticing.
-
2021-04-21, 07:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Since the topic of ancient steam power keeps cropping up here every so often, here's a useful video done on development of naval steam engines. If nothing else, it showcases why doing this is Not Easy and why having a steam engine doesn't mean it's suited for uses on warships.
That which does not kill you made a tactical error.
-
2021-04-21, 09:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
-
2021-05-10, 02:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Awkwardly copying and pasting this whole thing, since I was informed that it should probably go in this thread, rather than the thread that I started for it. Sorry!
So, I've asked several other places, and figure I might as well ask here. I'm putting this thread here because, though I'm hoping to use some of the ideas in games, it's not really for any given system, and applies more broadly to history in general.
So, my fellow history nerds, I'm looking for nautical quasi-experts to yammer at me so that I get an idea for boats able to be crafted with Hellenic skills c. 600 to 500 BC - obviously triremes, of course, but I'm specifically asking, "What is a boat (including triremes) that could have conceivably been used at the time, possibly even in war, even though it wasn't?" For example, why didn't they build ships akin to longships? It seems obvious that longships wouldn't do well in direct combat with triremes (as the latter could simply crush the former from sheer weight), but were they in use in the Mediterranean at all c. 550? If not, why not? Similarly, what were the far eastern peoples (most specifically those of India and China - though I beleeeiiiiiiiive India was still being slowly consolidated and the Zhou dynasty was pretty firmly eastern China)?
Basically, I'm asking about possible methods of nautical revolution, if it's even possible, under those conditions and if, when, and how such a thing might happen.
I'm pretty excited to see any feedback folks have, because navel history is nooooooot my forte, and it really is a fascinating subject. Any links that can be provided are, of course, welcome.
Also, it's a given that people of the ancient world were very intelligent (and certainly knew more about the subject than I do!); but different peoples had differing ships and different designs and uses and similar all at the same time period, so I'm curious why some developed in one place and not others. The triremes, for example, were uniquely Mediterranean, while the ancient Chinese and Indians had their own thing going on, to say nothing of the ancient South Sea and Pacific peoples. While a longship wouldn't fare well against a trireme, would it fare well against a the Mediterranean lembos or even the hemiolia and how do those differ (if they do)? I'm not even sure how the lembos or hemiolia were used (if they were) in combat when the triremes were on the field, simply because the triremes were so incredibly massive with literal armies aboard each it's hard to even think about comparisons.
Anyway, thanks! :DThe Lord of all loves you: yes, you, specifically. Trust in Him: I look forward to seeing you there!
-
2021-05-10, 02:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I was previously on talk-type, and this is an after-the-fact clean up, so apologies for any oddities from auto correct and things missed by me!
I also felt like I should clarify that in addition to just general seaworthiness and boat making stuff across-the-board, I’m also curious about how combat tactics in general might interact with each other from other local seafaring cultures. The primary interaction for triremes was to hit the other ship real hard and hope that was enough, and if not, your men went and stab their men. I would tend to expect this is the general method of naval combat, also adding archers at times, or something, but, again, I am really not familiar with naval warfare in this time period.
Edit: Talk-type is often not my friend. XDLast edited by Tacticslion; 2021-05-10 at 04:49 PM. Reason: Yeaugh. Talk-type, what did you doooooo
The Lord of all loves you: yes, you, specifically. Trust in Him: I look forward to seeing you there!
-
2021-05-11, 02:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
You seem to have a very high estimation of the size and mass of a trireme. They wouldn't have "literal armies" on them; a crew of 170 rowers was used for the reconstruction Olympias, and having a complement of marines even close to that would, if it didn't capsize the ship, probably immobilize it. You might be thinking of some of the larger polyremes.
-
2021-05-11, 03:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
- UK
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I believe the Egyptians were constructing large reed-boats prior to this time, even if the techniques hadn't made it over to Greece. Thor Heyerdahl's expeditions showed that they could have worked quite well with a few caveats:
1. Cut the reeds in August or they will float under the water not on it.
2. "Large" here probably equals up to 10 crew with room for a cargo or more men.
3. Although sails will provide some control, the boat will be very much at the mercy of ocean currents.
-
2021-05-11, 03:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
The design of a ship is heavily dependent on where it is designed to go.
In a shallow enclosed sea, such as the med, broad shallow designs work. In rough oceans deeper narrower designs work.
Harbor facilities are also important. Does the ship have to be beached to load/unload? Are there deep water docks readily available?
Navigation is another important consideration. In the Odyssey Odysseus spends 10 years mucking about in the Western Med before finding his way hime. Polynesians were able to conquer the Pacific in outrigger canoes and a bit of nouse.
-
2021-05-11, 07:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2015
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
To be fair to Odysseus, seven of those ten years he spent with Calypso.
-
2021-05-11, 10:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
The answer is, almost none. All kinds of ships were used in the Med at this time, and about the only exceptions to this are ocean-sailing ships. These could be constructed, concievably, and weren't because there wasn't much incentive to do so. Much of the age of sail has been inspired by colonial expansion, and ancient and medieval kingdoms in the area didn't have the desire to expand in this way, for a host of reasons.
If you give them some reason to really try to get to Americas - in real life, it was finding trade route to India - they will develop these over time.
Well, first problem is, what are you building them for? The scandinavian longships were meant for quick plundering raids, if you have a culture that doesn't value those all that much, they have less reason to build them.
The other reason is that, well, they did build ships that were longship-like, shields on the sides included.
Spoiler: Illyrian Lemboi
I could write more, but I'd just be paraphrasing this link.
Usually, they did, much like Lamboi was a greek longship. Thing is, it's the Norse that are weird in that they had longships and little else, while others had longships for specialized tasks and also other, bigger warships. As for specifics of Asian ship design, remember that they don't get the advantage of having a relatively calm and easy to navigate sea like the Med, almost entirely enclosed from all the oceans.
Spoiler: Song dynasty, warship that is basically a medieval galley, with the fore and aft castles moved to the center
Spoiler: Pretty sure you know about these, Korean turtle ships are triremes of Asia, complete with ram in form of angry face
You need some form of major upheval to status quo, that either wrecks the old ways or opens up new opportunities you have to jump on, as a nation, lest you are left behind.
The issue is that ship design is hideously expensive. I don't think there is any other object that even comes close to the cost of a warship, both in terms of designing and building it and maintenance and crew training and pay. Even castles are cheaper, because they tend to not sink or get damaged in storms much.
With that in mind, unless there is a massive payoff in resources or prestige on the horizon, no one will invest into building ships.
The one exception to this would be some kind of setting that is entirely island-based, where entire national economies would be driven to near collapse to maintain fleets, because they need them to stave off existential threats.
For comparision, when the Dutch wrecked British fleets at Medway in Second Anglo-Dutch war, the cost for the Royal Navy in terms of purchasing power was something over 6 billion pounds in modern money. Granted, yearly modern UK navy budget is 40 bil (with army getting 20, because ships are still incredibly costly), but that is still a significant chunk of it.
This is like asking "Explain 20th century in three sentences." The quick and dirty version is that once you ignore the mostly superficial details, you have a few distinct ship types, meant for different tasks, with different levels of seakeeping and resistance to bad weather.
Triremes specifically, and their medieval descendants, are a specific case of a large ship that carries a lot of troops and can manuevre quickly. It does that very well, but is absolutely awful at endurance of any kind, be it in rowing or in provisions. Longship is a light vessel that can move quickly, whether by oar or sail, and outpace and outturn pretty much anything, ideal for quick raids of merchant vessels or poorly defended coasts, but is awful for fighting anything in it. A merchant vessel sacrifices crew numbers and as much agility as it can to maximize cargo space and endurance.That which does not kill you made a tactical error.
-
2021-05-11, 12:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2014
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Yeah, the ten-year Odyssey is rather like the Biblical 40 years of wandering between Egypt and the Levant. They're meant to be larger-than-life tales of deprivation, not realistic expected travel times for those journeys at any point in human history. There are lots of routes one can take between Ilium and Ithaca, and none of them should take even a month in a penteconter (in good weather). Remember that all of Odysseus' "friends" made it back home before he did to start pestering Penelope, and though they were heinous guests, their point that someone who was ten years late returning home probably wasn't ever going to return was pretty valid.
And conversely, building ramming ships implies that your society is engaging in conflicts where it makes sense to sink ships in fights on the water, rather than capture them through boarding actions or simply use one's own ships to transport to the site of a land battle.
If you're looking for reading on the subject of ancient galleys, I would recommend this source; it's a series of reports on the subject of the reconstructed Olympias (including some critiques and divergence of opinion; I would take Tilley's essay with a grain of salt, as he appears to have an... idiosyncratic idea of how we should interpret the numbering system), getting into the nitty-gritty of all sorts of technical details as well as analyzing historical sources.Last edited by VoxRationis; 2021-05-11 at 12:45 PM.
-
2021-05-11, 04:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Hey! A hundred seventy dudes is a literal army... of rowers!
I could definitely have worded that better, however! XD
Mostly I'm just pointing out they had ludicrously large numbers of people on them (people they were dependent upon to do stuff), plus be built explicitly for ramming (and their mass is increased by that bronze ram in front).
The larger polyremes were simply too large to use ramming maneuvers on (or, at least, they got that way: ramming the ship really wasn't the way to win a battle after the triremes), but they didn't come online until the 300s or later, if I'm not mistaken, a little beyond my 600 to 500 BC: a time period in which, again to my limited knowledge, had only the karvi, smallest versions of the longship available, with c. 16 benches, making the triremes seemingly simply significantly out-mass them without effort. Of course, I could be wrong on that - perhaps triremes were even more crowded than I realize or longships were roomier. But 170+20+6=196 (I think?) seems a heck'v'a lot more than ~32.
I think it's 75 ft. by 11 ft. compared to 130 ft. by 20 ft. That's just shy of double in both dimensions, and I'd be unsurprised if the heavier warship, loaded with tons of dudes (highly exacting mathematical figures, here), also road deeper in the water with higher sides.
But the fact is, I honestly don't know about how the Mediterranean ships of smaller size really functioned (heck, I don't understand how the ones of bigger size function!). Speaking of which...
... this is more or less what I was talking about when I was asking about the comparison of, say, a lemboi to a longship. What are their comparative goals? How are they designed similarly or differently? What's the comparison? A great emphasis is often put on how great the longship design was, but is it just because they're pretty, because they last long, or is there some significant mechanical advantage they have?
As to,
Originally Posted by Martin Greywolf
I know that ships are built differently for differently, but that's part of what I'm asking (and even why I was asking if the longship actually compared to the lemboi in any way, which it seems they do based on your acknowledgement of them later).
I'd be interested in going more into the stuff you posted, but alas: I have children and probably have to stop now.
... okay, not really a Mediterranean ship, but still: I was informed elsewhere that the dhow, odam, and another woven ship of an unknown type were active in the middle and far easts at this time, and were all "woven" boats with no pitch, which is... something that I really don't know about. How does one craft a watertight vessel without pitch? What were they woven from?
I know nothing of odams except they're an Indian woven boat of some sort (though vague picture searches might suggest they're a circular small boat? Possibly akin in size to a coracle? But I really don't know), and I was under the impression that dhow were seaworthy ships that allowed cargo transfer, which likely means good steering. (I kind of thought dhow were a later stage, but I seem to have had literally everything wrong about them so far, so...)
Anyway. I gotta go! Later and thank you all for your responses so far!The Lord of all loves you: yes, you, specifically. Trust in Him: I look forward to seeing you there!
-
2021-05-11, 11:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
This is definitely outside of my bailiwick, but one area I would look to would be construction techniques and what limitations those might have imposed. My understanding is that ancient mediterranean vessels were made using a mortise and tenon technique, which involved building the hull first, then adding a frame. Lapstrake (or clinker) construction might have been developed a little later than the period you are interested in, but I believe that's the construction technique used by viking longships. Carvel built, where the frame was built first and then the hull built with flush planking, was a development of the middle ages.
As others have mentioned, there were different designs for different purposes. A bulk cargo ship might have a rounder hull to efficiently carry as much cargo as possible. A warship would be built narrow for speed. There would be ships that lie in between, trying to balance competing goals.
-
2021-05-11, 11:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I came across an unholy abomination called a lantern shield. How the hell did someone defend against that?
-
2021-05-12, 12:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Let's also not forget that the whole premise of that journey is Odysseus really, really ticking off Poseidon. The sea god. The god of the seas. While planning to sail on sad seas. Seas that belong to the sea god.
Fairly easily. (links to a sparring video on YT, not mine)
While it isn't completely useless, it tries to combine a sword/dagger with a shield and a lantern, and therefore suffers the drawbacks of all three. It's significantly less agile than a sword/dagger OR a shield, it has to be strapped to your arm, if you use it to attack, you can't use it to defend and if you have a lit lantern in there, you better pray to all the gods you know the oil doesn't spill and ignite all over you.
It's preferable to a parrying dagger when facing a halberd, but pretty much anything is at that point. The best use is probably if you absolutely, positively must storm into a dark room (whether at noght or underground), then it can serve as source of light, tool for blinding opponents and keeps your off hand useful in a fight. Pretty small niche overall, but it exists.
The lantern shields were unpopular enough that you sometimes, albeit rarely, see... just... a lantern in off hand, used kinda like a shield. Making it a shielding lantern? It is used to blind people, though.
Spoiler: MarcelliThat which does not kill you made a tactical error.
-
2021-05-17, 12:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Not actually a weapon, but in the same manufacturing sector:
Does anyone know when the modern pickaxe first appeared in its current shape? Those are long and thin pieces of steel that are made to endure a lot of abuse. I think this would require some pretty high quality steel, but as a digging tool also would have to be quite cheap. So I am wondering if these have been around before the industrial revolution, and what people would have used to break hard compacted dirt before.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2021-05-17, 01:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2019
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Uh, define current shape. Because people have been using points at right angles to shafts since basically forever. You can make a crude pickaxe-like tool out of an antler without much trouble, which should be sufficient for dirt. Adzes, mattocks, and hoes would also be used for manipulating dirt, being especially useful for digging out furrows for planting, clearing undergrowth, or digging out things you don't want in the dirt. All are incredibly ancient tools. Even the plow is about as old as things get, and the hand tools are older.
Simplest of all is the digging stick. Literally just a sturdy, sharpened stick, useable for most agricultural digging tasks. Still used in many places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digging_stick
People have had to dig since before we even learned to farm. A lot of gathered food or hunted critters lived underground, so tools to do it predate, a lot.Last edited by AdAstra; 2021-05-17 at 01:50 PM.
The stars are calling, but let's come up with a good opening line before we answer
Spoiler: Homebrew of Mine
-
2021-05-17, 07:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Slightly off topic, but something like this
https://youtu.be/rXAOXa-ayKE
My, albeit limited, understanding is that shield lanterns were for the city guards apprehending criminals at night, not serious warfare.Last edited by Pauly; 2021-05-17 at 09:08 PM.
-
2021-05-17, 07:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
To come full circle though, the Illiad and the Odyssey use the gods to explain phenomena that the Greeks of the time didn’t have the science to explain.
Flash floods caused by distant rain in the catchment head of a river? - The River god rose up and left it banks.
Morale failure in battle? - The opposing God came down and caused the enemy to run away.
Armor suddenly failing catastrophically because of inclusions in the metal? - A god broke the shield.
Storms at sea caused by a low pressure system moving into your local area? You p-ed off Poseidon.
Unmarried maiden falls pregnant? Zeus is up to his shenanigans while Hera had her back turned.
You suck at Navigation and don’t know how to tack against the wind? - The gods of winds and clouds conspired against youLast edited by Pauly; 2021-05-17 at 07:38 PM.
-
2021-05-20, 03:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- Durham
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
I'm been thinking about how people would apply titanium to usage on the battlefield if they had access to it.
-
2021-05-20, 08:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- The Lakes
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
What time period and other technology level are we looking at?
Titanium doesn't hold an edge, so not great for blades.
Not very dense, so not great for impact weapons.
I's strength per weight is good, and its corrosion resistant, so the right alloy might be good for armor.Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2021-05-20 at 08:08 AM.
It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.
Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.
The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.
The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.
-
2021-05-20, 10:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2016
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
-
2021-05-20, 10:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Location
- Slovakia
- Gender
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIX
Well, with modern metallurgy and plastics and non-newtonian fluids, you might get some limited use out of armor. Problem is, that low weight is actually pretty bad for making you not hurt purposes.
While a titanium helmet or cuirass may well stop penetration, the other way of hurting a guy in armor, short of stabbing him where armor is not, is blunt force. Contrary to pupular belief, and according to an often misquoted study (Fragment Hazard Criteria by Feinstein, available online for free), it isn't the kinetic energy that matters when it comes to blunt injuries, but rather momentum. Or, more precisely, a linear relationship between velocity and mass that is slanted in favor of velocity, but not to a point where it is exponential.
Long story short, if you take a projectile and take its p = m*v, then bigger p means more hurt.
However, when that projectile hits armor and does not go through, it will (in ideal circumstances) transfer all of its p to the target. If you are wearing rigid armor, like a helmet, it means it needs to move either the entire plate, or the bit of it which it deforms. Assuming former, your standard great helmet (which is Bolzano helmet replica I own) weights 5 kg (with helmet 3 kg, coif and crevelliere 2kg).
Take your average slinger, with a 100 gram anti-armor rock, slinging it at 50 m/s. This gives it a p=5 kg/m/s, which means that should it impact that helmet, it will move it, conveniently, at 1 m/s, or 3.6 km/h. This is an impact that is comparable to walking into a doorframe with the helmet on, something which, uh, I may have done in the past.
Reduce the helmet weight by half, and you get over 7 km/h speed, which is more like jogging into a doorframe with your forehead, which while not fatal, will almost assuredly knock you on your butt. Take an elite slinger that can sling at close to 100 m/s, or take a much heavier pollaxe (3 kg) moving at ~30 m/s overhand twohanded blow, and you really, really need every bit of that weight not to get a nasty hit.
That said, titanium armor would be great against arrows that have lower weight and primarily rely on penetration to do their damage.
Or you could make it titanium but thicker, but at that point, why bother? Maybe heat resistance for that dragon breath?That which does not kill you made a tactical error.