Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 678910111213141516
Results 451 to 458 of 458
  1. - Top - End - #451
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

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

    Shields generally arenít 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 Iím casting a very wide net and there will be plenty of examples do things differently, one obvious exception being the jousting shield..

  2. - Top - End - #452
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Right Behind You
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by thereaper View Post
    It went out of fashion with men-at-arms (they usually went with heater shields or nothing at all), but not with normal soldiers. I've seen illustrations from the 14th century where they're shown (such as this one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yb5J0NUtKl...shields_40.jpg). Matt Easton has also confirmed they "never really went away".

    I wouldn't be surprised if one could send a lead ball through a shield, but I'm curious how much energy it would have after doing so (whether it would still be lethal to a common soldier).
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #453
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Clistenes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by thereaper View Post
    It went out of fashion with men-at-arms (they usually went with heater shields or nothing at all), but not with normal soldiers. I've seen illustrations from the 14th century where they're shown (such as this one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yb5J0NUtKl...shields_40.jpg). Matt Easton has also confirmed they "never really went away".

    I wouldn't be surprised if one could send a lead ball through a shield, but I'm curious how much energy it would have after doing so (whether it would still be lethal to a common soldier).
    I dunno... that shield is the type with a flat upper side, not a tear-shaped one... at what point does a shield stop being a kite shield and becomes a heather shield...?

  4. - Top - End - #454
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Maybe melee weapons, including the bayonet, gain more psychological effect as they become more rare?
    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.

  5. - Top - End - #455
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2014

    Default 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?

  6. - Top - End - #456
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Brother Oni's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Cippa's River Meadow
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by VoxRationis View Post
    How does the seating arrangement in a modern tank (say, an Abrams) work? Are some of the crew members rotating as the turret traverses?
    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
    Show


    The Abrams is much the same, but I believe the driver isn't as prone.

  7. - Top - End - #457
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by KineticDiplomat View Post
    Re: knights and training. This kind of harkens to the heart of my earlier question. Just how much did that knight train, within the understandable variance? For comparison, a good CQB training path includes 1-2 weeks of ďjust shooting and other personal skillsĒ, followed by 3-4 weeks of escalating unit sized shoot houses and scenarios. The preponderance of the time and resourcing is spent on the unit (even if itís just a fire team) rather than the individual skill. How that stacks against a knight, a legionnaire, a redcoat, thatís the interesting bit of the question...
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by thereaper View Post
    It went out of fashion with men-at-arms (they usually went with heater shields or nothing at all), but not with normal soldiers. I've seen illustrations from the 14th century where they're shown (such as this one: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yb5J0NUtKl...shields_40.jpg). Matt Easton has also confirmed they "never really went away".
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly View Post
    Shields generally arenít 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 Iím casting a very wide net and there will be plenty of examples do things differently, one obvious exception being the jousting shield..
    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
    Show



    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.

  8. - Top - End - #458
    Orc in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default 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 youíre 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 donít have to feed the driver awareness). Most modern tanks wonít 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. Itís 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 itís actually manned by a very new soldier. He learns to direct the driver, manipulate the radio, and get a feel for whatís 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, heíll 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, itís 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •