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

[Spiryt]

There has been years of linguistic and cultural shifts, even without accounting for the translation in current English. What was considered "fustian lined with satin" back then is not what we would describe as "fustian lined with satin" in the year 2024.

Sure, words can change meanings, often drastically.

But if you claim that it did in this case, you need to prove it. Nothing indicates that "dowbelet of ffustean lyned with satene" means something much different than today.

Semantics of "līnen/linen/lynen" are very similar to modern, and as we can see, it was predominately used to describe very much "normal" clothing.





https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-...ch_id=57073372

You can read military historian Bret Devereaux's rather amazing blog, if you don't believe me.

In particular, in his Punching Through Some Armor Myths article, he directly states:

I've read it before, and it's nice, but he doesn't show any real evidence, about this whole layers of armor thing.

Again, it's common trope, today, bit of reneactionsim, but it doesn't seem necessarily true.

Wearing mail without padding is like paying a lot of money to get encased into a dull, flexible cheese grater.

And yet, mail was being worn without "padding" probably trough gout most of it's history. It seems that in Europe it changed somewhat somewhere around 12th century.


We can read the capitularies of Frankish kingdom in particular, they list mail, helmets, swords, or, very rarely, some kind of greaves, and prices for them, but nothing about any padding. Men of sufficient wealth are ordered to go with bow spare strings (sometimes two) and carts filled with axes, augers, adzes, mills, etc. As well as clothing for half a year of more.

No mention any padded garments, stuffed, or sewed from multiple layers, which would in general be something much more complicated and specific than an auger.

It doesn't seem than any Latin word for such a garment even exist in this period.


Incidentally, as far as civilian use of mail goes, I stumbled upon autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini recently, and it metions it clearly in several places:

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub...28-images.html

then I made haste to pass an excellent coat of mail over my shirt, and above that some clothes which I caught up at random.

Basically few descriptions of bunch of guys roaming around Rome armed to teeth, including hidden coats of mail, and causing lots of trouble.

It was mentioned that what I call mail skirts are also known by a different name. What would that name be?

"Paunce" seems to refer to something like that at least in ~ 14th century French, that was still used in England very commonly.

[Maat Mons]

How common was it, historically, to use something other than oil to prevent rust in mail? I've encountered mention of Oriental mail being tinned. Are there other treatment options?

For fabric worn in contact with armor, is any color less likely than others to show discoloration due to contact with the oils on the armor? Are there any other options for keeping your gambeson looking snazzy?

[Yora]

Japanese armor was regularly coated in anti-rust paint. Which is why most of them are black as the base with most of the color being the cords that lace the different plates together. (Though you could of course apply colored paint over the anti-rust coating for further decoration.

[Maat Mons]

Do "blued steel," "blackened steel," and "gunmetal finish" all mean the same thing?

[halfeye]

Do "blued steel," "blackened steel," and "gunmetal finish" all mean the same thing?

Gunmetal is an actual alloy, but the finish might just look like that, so maybe? There are probably dozens of ways to put a particular colour on the surface of steel or any other metal.

Gunmetal is a bronze, so the colour is something else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_gray#Off-grays

Gunmetal is a shade of gray that has a bluish purple tinge.[20] It describes the color of several metals used in industrial applications, such as tarnished gunmetal, or parkerized steel.

[snowblizz]

Do "blued steel," "blackened steel," and "gunmetal finish" all mean the same thing?

No they describe different results from differing processes aiming roughly towards the same end goal. Keeping armour surfaces rust free, and looking pretty.
There is also "russeted" armour. This would be a controlled rusting of the surface to stabilize it, it ends with a reddish surface.
Blackened can mean treating it with oils giving a smoky finish (I think it is heat treated, burning the oil in to the surface?) or possibly the covering the armour with black lacquer finish (the naming isn't always specific in old sources) which became the largely dominant method in the 1600s, I suspect from ease, durability (you don't change the properties of the forged steel like in heattreatments) and style purposes. The black lacquer can be strikingly inlaid with gold and quite a few surviving parade armours are of this type.
Blueing is also a heat treatment method for the steel that gives a blue tint to the armour.

[Maat Mons]

I hadn’t been aware that gunmetal was a material. I always thought it was a type of surface treatment. I guess my confusion stems from various manufacturers using the word to describe steel that’s undergone a particular surface treatment. And I guess those products were using the other definition of the word, which refers just to the color.

According to Wikipedia, blackening refers to any of several chemical processes for converting the outer surface of an iron-containing alloy into magnetite (Fe3O4). This is a form of rust that is black and doesn’t expand from the base metal as much as red rust (Fe2O3). The reduced expansion makes black rust less likely to flake off, and thus better at acting as a barrier to further rusting. Granted, the period usage of the word may not match up to the modern usage. I hadn’t heard of russeting. Is it purely cosmetic, or does it also offer some protection?

According to Wikipedia, bluing also refers to any of several chemical processes for converting the outer surface of an iron-containing alloy into magnetite (Fe3O4). Everything I’ve found says bluing can produce a range of colors, including black, depending on how long the reaction is allowed to progress. And I’ve personally seen “blued” metal that was black in color. Of course, this was in the context of firearms, and no firearm I’ve seen was striving to replicate any time period earlier than the 17th century. So there could, again, have been some alteration to the terminology in the intervening centuries.

Given that neither blackening nor bluing refer, at least in their modern usage, to and one specific chemical process, and both produce the same magnetite (black oxide) coating (which may actually be blue in color, at certain thicknesses), I’m struggling to grasp what the distinction between the two terms is.

I’m aware of other types of conversion coating, like Parkerizing, which creates an iron phosphate layer (or zinc phosphate, or manganese phosphate), or nitriding, which incorporates nitrogen (and maybe also carbon) into the outer layer. These two clearly seem different from each other, and from the other two, since they’re not only forming different compounds, but adding a completely different element to the metal.

[fusilier]

Gunmetal is an actual alloy, but the finish might just look like that, so maybe? There are probably dozens of ways to put a particular colour on the surface of steel or any other metal.

Gunmetal is a bronze, so the colour is something else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunmetal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shades_of_gray#Off-grays

This is one of those situations where the same word has different meanings --

Typically, when talking about a color, gunmetal refers to shiny black (dark gray) color, much like you would get with "blued" steel on a firearm.

In a different context, gunmetal might refer to a bronze alloy, which is used for casting bronze cannons. This alloy can vary a bit, and sometimes might have things in it which might technically make it not "bronze" (maybe). Also, people had a tendency to refer to these cannons as "brass" because they do look like brass when highly polished. The particular bronze alloy used, tends to not have the reddish color that a "bronze medal" might have, but instead is more yellow . . . more like brass (although if you're not confused enough already, another name for gunmetal is "red brass"). Some authorities writing about the alloy in the 18th century, gave up and just referred to the alloy as "gunmetal" rather than bothering with arguments about whether or not it was technically bronze or brass.

Clear as mud, eh?

Oh, also there's "browning" process that was used historically on some steel firearms.

[Yora]

Question: What kind of ammunition did pom-pom guns fire?

They are auto-cannons and were primarily used as anti-aircraft weapons in world war 2. And with their rate of fire I would assume that they weren't firing solid slugs.
But somehow none of the sources I found about the gun mention what it actually fired.

[Maat Mons]

Honestly, this is the first I’ve heard of pom pom guns, but I can’t find anything citing a fire rate faster than 300 rounds per minute, which isn’t actually that fast. The M61 Vulcan does over 6,000 rounds per minute.

Everything I can find about the construction of pom pom shells says they were filled with explosives that detonated on contact with the target. Does that count as “solid?”

[Gnoman]

Question: What kind of ammunition did pom-pom guns fire?

They are auto-cannons and were primarily used as anti-aircraft weapons in world war 2. And with their rate of fire I would assume that they weren't firing solid slugs.
But somehow none of the sources I found about the gun mention what it actually fired.

The "pom-pom", formally called the "QF 2-Pounder Naval Gun" fired a variety of ammunition. The most common type was impact-fused high-explosive because it was primarily intended for use against aircraft and small boats, but solid AP shot was available.

By WWII the weapon was massively obsolete, still in use on the "we already have it installed" principle but replaced whenever possible by the 40mm Bofors, a superior weapon of similar size that is still in limited use today. This also primarily used impact-fuzed high-explosive, though timed fuse explosive, solid AP shot, and (possibly, I'm not sure when things got downsized enough to fit) "Variable Time" radar proximity fused explosive were also available.

[Yora]

Does that count as “solid?”

No, that's hollow and filled with stuff.

I think I saw footage of pom-poms firing with shots of black bursts in the sky. Which looked a lot like timed fuses, but that seemed odd for a small auto-cannon at that time.

Seems like footage was spliced together that didn't belong together.

But impact projectiles at that rate of fire still seems odd.

[snowblizz]

Question: What kind of ammunition did pom-pom guns fire?

They are auto-cannons and were primarily used as anti-aircraft weapons in world war 2. And with their rate of fire I would assume that they weren't firing solid slugs.
But somehow none of the sources I found about the gun mention what it actually fired.

It's 40mm anti-aircraft gun so would be firing 40mm high explosive shells.

[halfeye]

Question: What kind of ammunition did pom-pom guns fire?

They are auto-cannons and were primarily used as anti-aircraft weapons in world war 2. And with their rate of fire I would assume that they weren't firing solid slugs.
But somehow none of the sources I found about the gun mention what it actually fired.

They were cannon and would have fired explosive shot. I'm surprised to hear they weren't timed explosive shot, that was usual for flak, which they were.

The first clue that the crew in general had that an air-raid was serious was the pom-poms starting up. They weren't particularly effective or well liked by the average sailor.

Except on extremely small boats, they were mounted in 4s or 8s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QF_2-pounder_naval_gun

When HMS Prince of Wales was attacked and sunk by Japanese aircraft near Singapore, the subsequent report judged that a single 40 mm Bofors gun firing tracer was a more effective anti-aircraft weapon[15][16] than a multiple pom-pom in director control, as the pom-poms did not have tracer ammunition and the pom-pom ammunition had deteriorated badly in its ready use lockers, while the Type 282 radar units also failed in the equatorial heat.[17][18] In the same action, the Commissioned Gunner of HMS Repulse spent the whole action running from one pom-pom mount to another trying to keep them operational due to the faulty ammunition. The pom-poms on Repulse shot down two of the four confirmed kills made by Force Z,[19] while Prince of Wales' pom-poms did record hits on enemy aircraft.[20]

That is to say, for one battleship and one battlecruiser (with crews of significantly over 1,000), the navy shot down four aircraft (with crews of 3 or 4). This was not the technology's finest hour.

[Maat Mons]

No, that's hollow and filled with stuff.

Don't "hollow" and "filled with stuff" have opposite meanings?

[Gnoman]

They were cannon and would have fired explosive shot. I'm surprised to hear they weren't timed explosive shot, that was usual for flak, which they were.

Timed fuses of that era were manually set by the crew before slamming it into the breech - the loader would physically reach over and crank a knob on the fuse. This doesn't work with autocannon, because the loader isn't shoving each individual shell in just before firing. It was highly effective and useful on things like the QF 4" or QF 4.7", the US 90mm, or the German 88mm. You would see sky bursts when firing, because virtually all explosive AA shells had a self-destruct, but it wasn't timed to burst around the target plane.

That is to say, for one battleship and one battlecruiser (with crews of significantly over 1,000), the navy shot down four aircraft (with crews of 3 or 4). This was not the technology's finest hour.

Light AA of this sort, even the more advanced kinds, was more about disrupting the attack than actually shooting the plane down. If flying into a storm of fire makes you attack from longer range and miss, or makes you rush your attack and miss as a result, the AA is successful. That's one of the reasons the report calls out the lack of tracer ammunition - tracers have a small effect on improving hit rates, but a very big effect on

Don't "hollow" and "filled with stuff" have opposite meanings?

In this context, "hollow" means "not a homogeneous mass of steel" - meaning a hollow steel shell filled with explosives.

[halfeye]

Light AA of this sort, even the more advanced kinds, was more about disrupting the attack than actually shooting the plane down. If flying into a storm of fire makes you attack from longer range and miss, or makes you rush your attack and miss as a result, the AA is successful. That's one of the reasons the report calls out the lack of tracer ammunition - tracers have a small effect on improving hit rates, but a very big effect on

Shooting a plane down is very effective at preventing that plane's attack. Tracer is usually in the back of a shot, and not very visible to a targer until it has missed that target.

[Gnoman]

Shooting a plane down is very effective at preventing that plane's attack. Tracer is usually in the back of a shot, and not very visible to a targer until it has missed that target.

Shooting a plane down is also very, very difficult. Your goal is to protect the target, and if the other guy breaks off or wastes the one shot he gets you've done this. There's significant documentation of this. It is also why stopping the Kamikaze and Baka attacks was so difficult, because they couldn't be scared off.

[Vinyadan]

Sure, words can change meanings, often drastically.

But if you claim that it did in this case, you need to prove it. Nothing indicates that "dowbelet of ffustean lyned with satene" means something much different than today.

Semantics of "līnen/linen/lynen" are very similar to modern, and as we can see, it was predominately used to describe very much "normal" clothing.

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/middle-...ch_id=57073372

I guess it's been a while, but I think some words should be said about this. Fabrics and clothing are notorious for the ease with which names and meanings slide over each other. To take fustain, here is copy-paste from Wikipedia:

Known in Late Latin as fustaneum[1] or fustanum[2][3] and in Medieval Latin as pannus fustāneus ('fustian cloth') or tela fustānea ('fustian mesh'),[4] the cloth is possibly named after the Egyptian city of Fustat near Cairo that manufactured such a material.[1][4]

It embraces plain twilled cloth known as jean, and cut fabrics similar to velvet, known as velveteen, moleskin, corduroy etc. The original medieval fustian was a stout but respectable cloth with a cotton weft and a linen warp.[5] The term seems to have quickly become less precise, and was applied to a coarse cloth made of wool and linen, and in the reign of Edward III of England, the name was given to a woollen fabric. By the early 20th century, fustians were usually of cotton dyed various colours.[6]

In a petition to Parliament during the reign of Mary I, "fustian of Naples" is mentioned. In the 13th and 14th centuries priests' robes and women's dresses were made of fustian, but though dresses are still made from some kinds, the chief use is for labourers' clothes.[6] From the mid 1600s to the mid 1700s, fustian was often used for bed hangings.[7]: 105 

Fustian, by the 1860s, referred to any cut weft cotton fabric, and its manufacture was common in towns of the fringe of the Lancashire cotton region, such as Congleton in Cheshire, Mow Cop in Staffordshire and Heptonstall in Calderdale. From 1800 to 1850 it was commonly called Baragan Fustian, and much used in Australia.

About satin: from a quick search it seems to have remained pretty constant as a textile weave. However, if by satin we mean the resulting textile material, variants abound.

Types of satin

Antique satin – is a type of satin-back shantung, woven with slubbed or unevenly spun weft yarns.[8][9]
Baronet or baronette – has a cotton back and a rayon or silk front, similar to georgette.[10]
Charmeuse – is a lightweight, draping satin-weave fabric with a dull reverse.[11]
Cuttanee – fine heavy and stout silk and cotton satin
Double face(d) – satin is woven with a glossy surface on both sides. It is possible for both sides to have a different pattern, albeit using the same colours.[12]
Duchess(e) satin – is a particularly luxurious, heavy, stiff satin.[12]
Faconne – is jacquard woven satin.[13]
Farmer's satin or Venetian cloth – is made from mercerised cotton.[13]
Gattar – is satin made with a silk warp and a cotton weft.[14]
Messaline – is lightweight and loosely woven.[15]
Polysatin or poly-satin – is an abbreviated term for polyester satin.
Slipper satin – is stiff and medium- to heavy-weight fabric.[16]
Sultan – is a worsted fabric with a satin face.[13]
Surf satin – was a 1910s American trademark for a taffeta fabric used for swimsuits.[17]

In general, textiles remind me of food names. There's a constant evolution going on in these fields, and it's faster than the linguistic one. Also, terms tend to be somewhat imprecise to begin with, referring to a range of similar products.

[Maat Mons]

I’d like peoples' subjective opinions on the relative importance of a few pieces of armor. For purposes of this thought experiment, let’s suppose you already have your helmet, some torso armor (breastplate, cuirass, brigandine, whatever), and something padded (gambeson, arming doublet, whatever). If you could pick just one more piece of armor, what would it be? For these purposes, a pair of gauntlets, spaulders, tassets, or whatever would count as one piece of armor, not two.

[Gnoman]

This would depend heavily on circumstances. If, for example, you're fighting in formation with a shield wall, protection on the arms becomes less important (because that's protected by shields) and leg armor becomes more important (because that's not). If you're a horseman fighting other horsemen, the horse itself gives your legs some protection and the angle attacks come from gives more. So arm protection would be better there.

[Misereor]

If you could pick just one more piece of armor, what would it be?

I thinking an Abrams.
(What? It's an RPG forum. You knew there would be munchkins!)

[stoutstien]

I’d like peoples' subjective opinions on the relative importance of a few pieces of armor. For purposes of this thought experiment, let’s suppose you already have your helmet, some torso armor (breastplate, cuirass, brigandine, whatever), and something padded (gambeson, arming doublet, whatever). If you could pick just one more piece of armor, what would it be? For these purposes, a pair of gauntlets, spaulders, tassets, or whatever would count as one piece of armor, not two.

Unless there is a very good reason not to have it would be a shield. If I'm planning to get hit I'd rather it be as far away from my soft bits as possible and it's useful offensively.

Plus if I got to run I can drop it and hopefully out leg em.

[Maat Mons]

This would depend heavily on circumstances. If, for example, you're fighting in formation with a shield wall, protection on the arms becomes less important (because that's protected by shields) and leg armor becomes more important (because that's not). If you're a horseman fighting other horsemen, the horse itself gives your legs some protection and the angle attacks come from gives more. So arm protection would be better there.

Okay, but in each of those two broad categories of cases, those where arm protection would be more important and those where leg protection would be more important, what would your preference be? If you were picking one piece of arm protection, would it be gauntlets, spaulders, mail sleeves, or something else? If you were picking one piece of leg protection, would it be tassets, geaves, a mail skirt, or something else? Alternately, a long hauberk should probably count as a single piece of armor, even though it provides protection to both the arms and upper legs.

Unless there is a very good reason not to have it would be a shield. If I'm planning to get hit I'd rather it be as far away from my soft bits as possible and it's useful offensively.

Plus if I got to run I can drop it and hopefully out leg em.

I kind of don't think of shields as armor, but rather as a third category of equipment alongside weapons and armor. Looking around, it seems that's something I unwittingly made up, and shields are firmly considered armor. If I'd realized that, I would have asked my question differently. I apologize. If you had the armor I mention earlier, and also a shield, what would be your next pick for an additional piece of armor? Alternately, if you had the armor I mentioned earlier, and had for whatever reason decided not to use a shield, what would be your next pick for an additional piece of armor? In case that changes your priorities.

[VonKaiserstein]

I’d like peoples' subjective opinions on the relative importance of a few pieces of armor. For purposes of this thought experiment, let’s suppose you already have your helmet, some torso armor (breastplate, cuirass, brigandine, whatever), and something padded (gambeson, arming doublet, whatever). If you could pick just one more piece of armor, what would it be? For these purposes, a pair of gauntlets, spaulders, tassets, or whatever would count as one piece of armor, not two.

Purely subjective, but assuming my torso and helmet are good, I'm going for a pair of bazubands. They cover the forearm and the elbow, are extremely easy to move around in, and as long as you aren't stuck fighting in a formation, very easy to reposition as well. Then again, I'm 5'4" and in the 145lbs range, so I'd tend to be skirmishing rather than trying to hold the line against 300lbs dudes, so I'd like something light that doesn't impair my speed or dexterity with my weapons.

Were I going 2 handed, I'd choose the gauntlets. Your arms are a more difficult target to hit at the best of times, but your hands are really tough to repair, or replace if they get injured. And any 2 hander leaves them very open to damage. With a basket on your sword and a shield, its not as much of a concern... but otherwise it's the primary one.

In a shield wall, formation style combat, spaulders. The blows are coming over the shield, and your shieldbrethren are blocking shots from the side. That's the best bang for your buck.

[stoutstien]

I kind of don't think of shields as armor, but rather as a third category of equipment alongside weapons and armor. Looking around, it seems that's something I unwittingly made up, and shields are firmly considered armor. If I'd realized that, I would have asked my question differently. I apologize. If you had the armor I mention earlier, and also a shield, what would be your next pick for an additional piece of armor? Alternately, if you had the armor I mentioned earlier, and had for whatever reason decided not to use a shield, what would be your next pick for an additional piece of armor? In case that changes your priorities.

Assuming skirmish style combat I would rate the remaining protection needs in decending order based on my personal style and where I have or would have received a touch in a bout: hand>forearm/arms> neck>upper legs>shins.

Since I usually gravitate towards weapons that have integral hand protection the next thing I'd want to cover would be the limb im exposing to wield then.

[gbaji]

Yeah. Assuming we've got the head covered already, and assuming we're also focusing on "less than fatal/incapacitating" wounds, I'd have to say that nothing messes with your ability to function in a fight more than getting whacked in the hand. Minor hits and brushes that you'd just shrug off (or not even feel) in other parts of your body will hurt like heck when hitting your hands. I've seen more people just immediately stop fighting, and need to "walk it off" when getting a minor whack in the finger or back of the hand than anything else during practice fighting.

So... hand protection is really important. How far I'd go with this depends on what kinds of weapons are being used, of course. Basket hilts and shields tend to do fairly well (but seriously, I'd never fight with anything less than very very thick gloves on, and even partial metal coverage on the backside is something I'd go for in just about any situation). You don't need full clamshells or anything, but I'd never turn them down.

But if that's reasonably covered, I'd go legs. Assuming upper legs are covered, and we're doing standing skirmish type fighting, then shins and boot toppers maybe next (top of the foot hurts like heck too). Honestly, this might vary wildly if we're speculating about actual "real" combat, versus what I'd use in an SCA style fight (were I'm literally worried far more about "things that hurt a lot", than "things that will kill me"). Also, since those bouts tend to be about touches and not really "how solid/strong/deadly was that blow really?", the armoring you wear is really about a combination of comfort/mobility versus "pain when you get hit".

In a real battle, I'd be more concerned with side/back of the legs, since those would be common targets (they can be hit under the shield, and there were whole sets of infantry tactics and techniques specifically designed to do this) and there are some nice fat juicy arteries that, if hit, will cause you to expire fairly rapidly. And muscles/tendons that are necessary for you to keep standing. A fallen soldier is as good as a dead one. Assuming, of course, that we've already covered the head, torso, shoulders, etc.

er... I guess I could ask if I'm playing the role of cowardly/reluctant/pressed soldier here? In which case, I might leave my legs a bit exposed, and hope I get a hit there that makes me wounded and unable to stand, but doesn't kill or permanently cripple me. Cause... you know, a nice tent a bit away from the battlefield where my wound can be tended to might be a nice change of pace.

[NRSASD]

Hello! I am looking for some shotguns that would have existed in 1925. Ideally shotguns that are rather distinct from one another, preferably ones that would have been found in Britain. Probably designed for hunting rather than combat. I'm trying to fill out a weapons list. Thanks in advance!

[Maat Mons]

How specific is your weapon list? Is it things like "12-gauge pump-action shotgun," or is it specific models? If it's specific models, I'm not going to be much help. Personally though, if I were designing the game system, I'd probably only bother with four shotguns. There'd be 12 gauge for higher power and 20 gauge for lower recoil. There'd also be pump action and double barrel. Pump action can shoot 5 times before reloading, but you have to work the mechanism between each shot. Double barrel can fire 2 times without needing to do anything except pull the triggers, but then you have to reload.

[Tarmor]

Hello! I am looking for some shotguns that would have existed in 1925.

Remington M1889 Double-barrel (Production ceased in 1909 but likely still around)
Remington Model 10 (1907), Model 17 Pump-action (1921)
Browning Auto-5 (1902)
Winchester M1901 Lever-action, M1911 Self-loading, M1912 Slide-action.