Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

Still stealing Thiel's post...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thiel

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

A few rules for this thread:

This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.

Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.

Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).

No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)

No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.

---

Previous Threads:
Thread V
Thread VI
Thread VII
Thread VIII
Thread IX
Thread X
Thread XI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

My 175 lb hunting crossbow will shoot a bolt all the way through a 1/2" plywood shield and it's not even nearly as powerful as say, a Mongol recurve.

---

I'd be careful about assuming that - a modern weapon is far more efficient than its historical counterpart.

A bit of digging indicates that most medieval crossbow prods only pull 4-6", while a modern one pulls 7-8" due to better quality steel and manufacturing tolerances.
Those couple of extra inches would allow for a significant increase in power, so assuming a linear increase in power out:draw distance, your 175lb crossbow could well equal a 350lb medieval one and hence match up against a decent draw weight Mongolian recurve.
This isn't allowing for any other design improvements that modern technology enables (release mechanism, modern string materials, etc).

Speaking of which, I wonder if a modern aluminium or a carbon fibre arrow would get the same sort of penetration as a traditional wood one? I'm thinking not since they're considerably lighter, but I don't have the equipment to test this out.
I'm also somewhat limited in the arrow heads I can obtain in this country due to laws on bow hunting (we're not allowed to so importing modern arrow heads might be a bit tricky).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

Basically I think the sword continued to be really important for anybody above the status of cannon fodder until the primary weapon became a multi-use, high kill probablity / low failure rate weapon (i.e. rifle or carbine with cartridges) and the sidearm also became equally effective and reliable (revolver)

---

I've several depictions of American Civil War officers leading their men into combat with pistol and saber - is this not accurate, or were automatic revolvers not fully reliable/effective yet?

Quote:

---

In terms of organization and training, how were High Medieval Scandinavian armies different from German armies of the same period. The Osprey books seem to imply that German armies were more "knight-heavy" while the Scandinavians relied more on militias made up of wealthy, well trained peasants who fought as infantry.

That said, I know that German peasant communities had a very strong tradition of self-defense and often fielded well-equipped militias. At the same time, Scandinavians had a proud, professional (to the extent that anybody was a professional soldier in the middle ages) warrior tradition going back to Viking huskarls.

---

In Germany, it's an extreme contrast between different specific regions, it's very mixed; some are effectively small feudal kingoms, some are urban republics, some are peasant zones, some are little theocracies.

The best infantry comes from the towns, not so much the peasants who kind of form the second rank, though there are exceptions in areas like the Dithmarschen and the Tyrol where they had very tough peasants. In areas like Brandenburg where there is a really strong feudal system you may have more knights, (this is one of the areas where the famous pistol armed ritter knights became established in the 16th Century) but I actually think very generally speaking Germany was probably a lot less 'knight -heavy' than France. The major fighting force in Germanyby the end of the 15th century were the Landsknechts - mercenary infantry organized on the Swiss model.

From what little I understand about Denmark, it was similar to Germany in many respects; for a lot of their foreign adventures (such as their Crusades and occupation of some of the Baltic regions, as well as of Sweden and Norway under the Kalmar Union) they relied a lot on German knights and mercenaries. Within Denmark proper, by Scandinavian tradition, the peasants had substantial rights and the King was somewhat limited in what he could do to his own people.

Norway was sort of subjugated by Denmark or Sweden or both for a lot of the Medieval era; as well as by the Hanseatic League (Bergen was sort of a colony of the Hanse)

In Sweden during Medieval times you had a small arisotcracy, only a few significant towns like Stockholm (which all had large German populations) and not very many serfs. The vast majority were peasants who owned their own land and enjoyed pretty good rights - including being heavily armed.

Efforts by the Danes (and their German, Italian and Scottish mercenaries) to subjugate the Swedish peasants backfired into rebellions. Due to the frequency of these rebellions, and their increasing successes, the peasants had a lot of good quality arms and armor. A series of risings against the Danes by miners and peasants in places like Dalarna (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engelbrekt_rebellion) led to the peasants being included in the Diet or Riksdag in Sweden which was unusual in Europe (as far as I know only Switzerland also included peasants in the Diet or national Estates) I think the strength of the peasants in Sweden (and also Finland, largely a Swedish fief during the Middle Ages) is due at least in part to the heavily forested landscape.

Both Denmark and Sweden exerted their military force largely through their navies all through the Medieval era, and both had sort of privateer fleets as well as warships protecting their large trading networks. Denmark frequently clashed with the Hanseatic League, Sweden was more often partnered with the league and helped establish it.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

I've several depictions of American Civil War officers leading their men into combat with pistol and saber - is this not accurate, or were automatic revolvers not fully reliable/effective yet?

---

During the Civil War, wouldn't those have mostly been cap-and-ball (percussion) revolvers like the Colt 1851 Navy? So they weren't using cartridges, and probably weren't as reliable. Given Galloglaich specified cartridges for the rifles and carbines, I expect he meant them for revolvers, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

(and also Finland, largely a Swedish fief during the Middle Ages)

---

Really, the separation of Finland and Sweden as entities of the same "rank" after the 13th century and up until 1809 is artificial and kind of modern. (Some slight nationalism recasting Finland as its own entity, since the 19th century.) There was Sweden, which included Norrland (including the north half of what is now Finland), Svealand, Götaland, and Österland (southern half of Finland). It was less a matter of being a fief, and more a matter of being a region.

Edit: Of course, the lands fell out of use and from the 17th century onward we had provinces, which were just provinces of eastern Sweden...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

I've several depictions of American Civil War officers leading their men into combat with pistol and saber - is this not accurate, or were automatic revolvers not fully reliable/effective yet?

---

Revolvers were quite common druing the ACW. What do you mean by "pistol?"

There is a common lithograph style that a lot of ACW art was done in, and that art tends to show what look like flintlock pistols. But they also show very standard uniforms, which was not the case, especially for the confederacy, and every soldier looking like the W.B. Mason office supply guy, so I think that's just artistic license.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bhWtt1Cti7...er_hi-res..jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_G

Revolvers were quite common druing the ACW. What do you mean by "pistol?"

There is a common lithograph style that a lot of ACW art was done in, and that art tends to show what look like flintlock pistols. But they also show very standard uniforms, which was not the case, especially for the confederacy, and every soldier looking like the W.B. Mason office supply guy, so I think that's just artistic license.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-bhWtt1Cti7...er_hi-res..jpg

---

I think it depends on the revolver. An 1851 Navy is not a Colt Peacemaker. One use a ball-and-cap percussion while the other uses full cartridges. The Peacemaker with some practice can take about a minute to fully reload while the 1851 can take considerably longer. This is before we even get into the idea of repeat rifles.

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea? Its not all that much of a leap once you look at how early muzzle loading firearms had to be reloaded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

In Germany, it's an extreme contrast between different specific regions, it's very mixed; some are effectively small feudal kingoms, some are urban republics, some are peasant zones, some are little theocracies.

The best infantry comes from the towns, not so much the peasants who kind of form the second rank, though there are exceptions in areas like the Dithmarschen and the Tyrol where they had very tough peasants. In areas like Brandenburg where there is a really strong feudal system you may have more knights, (this is one of the areas where the famous pistol armed ritter knights became established in the 16th Century) but I actually think very generally speaking Germany was probably a lot less 'knight -heavy' than France. The major fighting force in Germanyby the end of the 15th century were the Landsknechts - mercenary infantry organized on the Swiss model.

In Sweden during Medieval times you had a small arisotcracy, only a few significant towns like Stockholm (which all had large German populations) and not very many serfs. The vast majority were peasants who owned their own land and enjoyed pretty good rights - including being heavily armed.
G

---

I was under the impression that Germany was much more feudal in the 12th and 13th centuries, which is what I was asking about. Were people like Frederick Barbarossa also fielding armies comprised of urban infantry levies/urban infantry mercenaries (who I think were mainly urban infantry militias who had gone pro?)

As for Sweden, is it fair to say that Swedish armies were primarily rural infantry with a handful of knights mixed in to "stiffen" the ranks? Did Swedish kings have much in the way of large groups of men-at-arms or sergeants or were they more or less reliant on peasant levies?

On the subject of 13th century Sweden, can anyone direct me to a good (English or English translation) source on the Battle of Lena 1208? Is there much known about it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

A bit of digging indicates that most medieval crossbow prods only pull 4-6", while a modern one pulls 7-8" due to better quality steel and manufacturing tolerances.
Those couple of extra inches would allow for a significant increase in power, so assuming a linear increase in power out:draw distance, your 175lb crossbow could well equal a 350lb medieval one and hence match up against a decent draw weight Mongolian recurve.
This isn't allowing for any other design improvements that modern technology enables (release mechanism, modern string materials, etc).

---

Judging by the pictures, it doesn't even seem that this crossbow is steel, though.

Additional draw lenght is important, of course, but the very first point is that it's pulley bow, and that, if we like it or not, really blows traditional design completely away.

Draw of 175 pounds allow, trough that leverage, to draw way stiffer bow that by applying 175 pounds of force just by pulling by the bow tips.

I have no idea about what model it is, but with 175 pounds, with serious draw lenght, we're probably indeed thinking about 90J at least.

Anyway, just by looking at those Galloglaich pictures, one can tell that it's huge fun, but I don't understand why try to put any real significance on how historical items might might have behaved.

Aluminum tubes may not be most optimal as far as penetrating goes, but they're trough, hard, and generally one don't have to worry about them getting damaged by striking reasonable targets.

They're also very smooth, slick and tough, as mentioned, so after the point breaks trough the plywood, it's not surprising at all, that arrow keeps on sliding forwards anyway, up to 10 inches.

Target point doesn't need much energy to put a hole in something, although I can't see point shape.

Wooden shaft wouldn't obviously behave very similarly, in fact it would probably get jammed quite a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fortinbras

I was under the impression that Germany was much more feudal in the 12th and 13th centuries, which is what I was asking about. Were people like Frederick Barbarossa also fielding armies comprised of urban infantry levies/urban infantry mercenaries (who I think were mainly urban infantry militias who had gone pro?)

---

Yes though the towns were smalller and he would also have more rural tribal / clan infantry. I know he brought a lot of Czechs and the Italians thought they were quasi-pagan due to their painting their faces and making little child shaped cakes they bit the heads off of.

Typically in this period the ratio of cavalry to infantry is about 1- 4 or 1-5, if I remember correctly. The Italians of course who he is facing are mostly infantry from the urban militias.

Quote:

---

As for Sweden, is it fair to say that Swedish armies were primarily rural infantry with a handful of knights mixed in to "stiffen" the ranks? Did Swedish kings have much in the way of large groups of men-at-arms or sergeants or were they more or less reliant on peasant levies?

---

A lot of mercenaries I think, and organized mostly as ship crews in that period, but yes the actual Swedish armies would be essentially a small number of knights and a core of rural infantry. Swedish Kings didn't have very big entourages or standing armies.

As for that battle, try to find the Swedish wiki and use google translate.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiryt

Judging by the pictures, it doesn't even seem that this crossbow is steel, though.

---

It is steel.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike_G

Revolvers were quite common druing the ACW. What do you mean by "pistol?"

---

Small modern-ish looking handgun, probably a revolver (my memory's a bit fuzzy), but I agree artistic license was probably involved.

I was under the impression that cartridge loaded revolvers and rifles were common during the ACW era, but some actual research (:smallredface:) indicates that the ACW was a bit of a transition period with muzzle loaders, caplock, rim fire and centre fire mechanisms involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea?

---

I would say the cost of paper. Wikipedia says that paper remained comparatively expensive until 19th Century steam driven paper making machines could mass produce the stuff from wood pulp fibres.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiryt

I have no idea about what model it is, but with 175 pounds, with serious draw lenght, we're probably indeed thinking about 90J at least.

---

What model is it, Galloglaich, if you don't mind us asking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiryt

Anyway, just by looking at those Galloglaich pictures, one can tell that it's huge fun, but I don't understand why try to put any real significance on how historical items might might have behaved.

---

Because getting hold of a traditionallly crafted Mongolian recurve bow is somewhat tricky and expensive, so we like to draw comparisons with what we have available. :smalltongue:

that is definitely not true - paper was relatively cheap and common, made from water wheel powered paper mills, from the 13th Century in Spain and Italy, and throughout Europe by the 14th. It was really the paper revolution which predated the printing press that made the success fo the printing press (mid 15th) possible. There was already a huge and lucrative market for books and manuscripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_m...-powered_mills

G

Revolver and a sword seems like a good idea to me- the revolver is probably pretty reliable for 5 or 6 shots but then you may very well need the sword.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

Because getting hold of a traditionallly crafted Mongolian recurve bow is somewhat tricky and expensive, so we like to draw comparisons with what we have available. :smalltongue:

---

If it's Mongolian recurve, it's modern 'budget' imitation with synthetic layers, or compound crossbow doesn't really make that much difference TBH.

After all, it doesn't come into any contact with target (unless something goes slapstick-grade wrong:smalltongue:), - so physical properties of actually interacting arrows and target are much more important.

As far as paper cartridges go, it depends on what means by 'common', I guess.

As far as I know, by the end of 16th century, there's already plenty of mentions about them, but they didn't become exactly very common for a long time still.

I would guess that a lot of times, they were quite a lot of trouble for not that much gain, since all the things to do when reloading a musket/arquebus were anyway time consuming and tiring, with or without paper cartridge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

What model is it, Galloglaich, if you don't mind us asking?

---

Inferno Blitz II, Spiryt was right it's actually a fiberglass bow and it's 150 lbs draw, not 175 :smalleek: Just looked it up.

Quote:

---

Because getting hold of a traditionallly crafted Mongolian recurve bow is somewhat tricky and expensive, so we like to draw comparisons with what we have available. :smalltongue:

---

I am planning to get one of those, or at any rate some traditionally made composite recurve, (maybe Hungarian or Turkish type, I haven't decided) but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Just starting to reaquaint myself with archery at the moment, until recently I hadn't shot any kind of bow since I was around 16.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

I think it depends on the revolver. An 1851 Navy is not a Colt Peacemaker. One use a ball-and-cap percussion while the other uses full cartridges. The Peacemaker with some practice can take about a minute to fully reload while the 1851 can take considerably longer. This is before we even get into the idea of repeat rifles.

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea? Its not all that much of a leap once you look at how early muzzle loading firearms had to be reloaded.

---

well, I made a post about this about a month ago, and as far I as know, paper cartridges came in at some point before 1700 or so (I'll put it this way: English civil war troops form the 1640's seem to have used wooden cartridges, while Marlborough's troops in the 1700's had paper ones. however, this video shows a re-enactor with a civil war era matchlock using a paper cartridge, which the first time I have seen it used that early).

Before that point, the amount of faffing about needed to load a match-lock weapon (like the vid says, 30 to 60 seconds to reload) meant that their was not that much of a benefit form paper cartridges. however, I have seen people using a small cup roughly the size and shape of a modern cartridge when loading with loose powder, to get the amounts right.


also, early gunpowder had a nasty tendency to "settle" and separate into it's component parts when shaken (like, for example, if carried any distance). It was normal for a long time to only have small amount of power mixed, and then carry the rest un mixed and make more as needed (this also reduced the risk of a powder explosion)

it took a while (not sure how long) before people worked out how to keep the power form separating, which I think Is a major requirement for cartridge loading (being able to cerate a cartridge, carry it about for weeks or even months, then use it with confidence it will work).

Something like a cartridge, with a pre-measured amount of powder and a bullet, I guess wrapped in cloth, was used in the 15th century and pretty common by the 16th, you see them in period art a lot in kind of bandoliers, like this guy

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ier_(1585).jpg

My understanding (fusilier or somebody can correct me) is that the 'settling' issue was largely solved by the invention of corned powder, which once again was a 15th century thing.

G

those are wooded pots, as seen here.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_AqOMam65mr...ncolnshire.jpg

normal count was 12, I believe. certainly, a nickname for them was the "12 apostles".


also visible in image: smouldering "slow match", which was normally lit at both ends (in case one went out), and his musket rest, which is in his left hand under his hat.

I stand corrected, you are right - the 12 apostles, I forgot about that.

the practice does seem to go back to the 16th century though...

G

I've been wondering this for a while...

Are Kukris are good as I think they are? And what's the case against them?

I have one myself (more of a kukri machete than a combat kukri) and I absolutely love it - it's powerful, it's precise, and I use it for everything from kitchen work to clearing paths through the woods to cutting down trees. But, I have barely any experience or training with actual weapon fighting (a few days of knife-fighting in Aikido is the sum total), so I'm not sure how well my experience with a kukri as a tool translates to its effectiveness as a weapon.

One thing in particular I've been told is that the forward curve actually makes it better for stabbing, because you can keep a straight, strong wrist while still driving the point directly into your target: this makes sense to me, but I'm not sure if it's really a notable advantage.

I'm also wondering if they're actually "Harder to use" than straight blades - I know 3.5 classifies them as exotic weapons, but mine feels just as natural to me as a knife does (the weight and size are a bit tricky, but nothing more than I imagine a short sword would be.) Is it actually harder/less intuitive to fight with a kukri than with a simple knife?

I know that a number of real-life military organizations use them, but I'm not sure how much of that is a practical decision, and how much of it is cultural/ceremonial - and if they are practical, is that only in "Modern" combat settings? (where ranged weaponry is the norm, and armour is a much different thing than it would be in a medieval setting.)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

Yes though the towns were smalller and he would also have more rural tribal / clan infantry. I know he brought a lot of Czechs and the Italians thought they were quasi-pagan due to their painting their faces and making little child shaped cakes they bit the heads off of.

Typically in this period the ratio of cavalry to infantry is about 1- 4 or 1-5, if I remember correctly. The Italians of course who he is facing are mostly infantry from the urban militias.



A lot of mercenaries I think, and organized mostly as ship crews in that period, but yes the actual Swedish armies would be essentially a small number of knights and a core of rural infantry. Swedish Kings didn't have very big entourages or standing armies.

As for that battle, try to find the Swedish wiki and use google translate.

G

---

I'm sorry to keep belaboring the point, but I remain a little confused. Were their substantial differences between Swedish and German armies in the 12th and 13th centuries?

Here's a question for those more familiar with re-enactment. How difficult would it be to physically "hold" someone with a one-handed spear? I mean as in using the spear to stop a charging attacker even if it doesn't penetrate their shield or armor. Does the type of grip make a difference? Is it even something that comes up often?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fortinbras

I'm sorry to keep belaboring the point, but I remain a little confused. Were their substantial differences between Swedish and German armies in the 12th and 13th centuries?

---

I'm more informed on the 15th century, but my assumption would be yes, in the following ways:

1) Swedish armies would have fewer knights or burghers and more infantry

2) Swedish infantry would be more based on 'peasants' (in the 12th century particularly, these are still kind of more like what you might call clanmembers or tribe members, and there is more of a gray area between knights and peasants). In that sense comparable to Scotland in this period.

3) Swedish armies would have had generally less advanced equipment, especially siege equipment, less advanced armor. More shields. On the other hand the Sweden was one of the better iron and steel producers in Europe all through the Medieval era so they may have had a decent amount of iron kit.

4) Swedish armies would have more naval assets, more ocean going ships, more coastal vessels. Much of their militia would be organized as boat crews.

5) Some weapons and other equipment might be different. This is more speculation but I think the Swedes still had a good number of bows in use in the 12th -13th century (they show up in the musters) as opposed to crossbows which would already be more common in Germany. Swedish peasants seemed to be using these sort of hewing spear type polearms* which you see at Wisby in the 14th Century and later again in the 16th, that I suspect are of pretty old lineage and probably existed back to Viking times. Swedes were probably still using a lot more axes, javelins, and spears than were common elsewhere, and probably still using seaxes or equivalent. Norwegians seemed to use a lot of single-edged swords.

6) Swedes seemed to have particularly good ambush tactics and special tricks for fighting in the forests. Some of these were allegedly the basis of some tricks used by the Finns in the Winter War in the 20th Century.

G


* like you see in the hands of the Swedish peasant to the left

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Dolstein_1.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swordstaff

Good stuff, thanks Galloglaich.

You are more than welcome.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

Revolver and a sword seems like a good idea to me- the revolver is probably pretty reliable for 5 or 6 shots but then you may very well need the sword.

G

---

And most Civil War revolvers were cap-and-ball and could take a considerable time to reload. So if the fighting was getting into hand-to-hand, a sword would be useful.

For an officer during the American Civil War the sword was the only official weapon that he was required to carry, but an officer's job was (and I assume still is) to direct troops in battle, not to personally attack the enemy. For example, an infantry captain in battle line was "covered" by the first sergeant -- who was only to discharge his weapon to protect the Captain.

An officer could choose to arm himself as he saw fit, a revolver was common, but some were known to carry carbines, or even a musket. The sword was used primarily for giving signals on the field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

I did have a question though. What's with early firearms manufacturers not thinking of using preloaded packages of powder and ball wrapped in paper. I know that format became common eventually, but does anybody know why it took so long for somebody to come up with the idea? Its not all that much of a leap once you look at how early muzzle loading firearms had to be reloaded.

---

The earliest paper cartridges I've seen date from the 16th century; one end was plugged with the bullet. They seem to have been rare, and used with hunting weaponry. In the 17th century you start seeing paper cartridges (perhaps more properly "chargers"*) being used in military units, but it's not until the beginning of the 18th century that they become standard.

One reason paper cartridges may have taken a long time to become common, is the general lack of standardization in general. It took sometime before weapons were being made standard enough that a central supply system could provide preloaded ammo. Since the 16th century, large groups of standardized weapons might be ordered, but I think the usual requirement is that they be of the same caliber -- not that they match some national standard caliber.

*I would refer to the wooden tubes with a preloaded amount of powder in them as "chargers" and not a cartridge. In my mind a cartridge combines powder and ball, whereas a charger contains only powder. I don't know if that's a common distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

I was under the impression that cartridge loaded revolvers and rifles were common during the ACW era, but some actual research (:smallredface:) indicates that the ACW was a bit of a transition period with muzzle loaders, caplock, rim fire and centre fire mechanisms involved.

---

I suppose it depends upon what is meant by "common" -- cartridge weapons were certainly available. But both sides of the Civil War were primarily armed with muzzle-loading muskets/rifles, and cap-and-ball revolvers. Cavalry were more usually armed with breechloaders, but mostly paper cartridges. However, metallic cartridges certainly "proved" themselves during the Civil War and afterwards they quickly became universal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fusilier

And most Civil War revolvers were cap-and-ball and could take a considerable time to reload. So if the fighting was getting into hand-to-hand, a sword would be useful.

---

I've used a Civil War revolver like that. For the non-proficient such as myself, it takes ten minutes or more to reload, and is a finicky process. With practice I'm sure a person could do it much faster, but probably not while paying attention to their command.

And they're not what I'd call accurate. On the upside the one I fired was very heavy with a lot of brass fittings on the grip, so it would make a quite good club if you needed it. Probably not such a hot (or altogether too hot) an idea if you'd just emptied all six chambers though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warty goblin

I've used a Civil War revolver like that. For the non-proficient such as myself, it takes ten minutes or more to reload, and is a finicky process. With practice I'm sure a person could do it much faster, but probably not while paying attention to their command.

And they're not what I'd call accurate. On the upside the one I fired was very heavy with a lot of brass fittings on the grip, so it would make a quite good club if you needed it. Probably not such a hot (or altogether too hot) an idea if you'd just emptied all six chambers though.

---

Sometimes a spare preloaded cylinder could be carried. I think the cylinders on Remington revolvers were relatively easy to swap out. But it doesn't seem to have been that common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fusilier

Sometimes a spare preloaded cylinder could be carried. I think the cylinders on Remington revolvers were relatively easy to swap out. But it doesn't seem to have been that common.

---

It wasn't possible with the one I used; we tried but the cylinder was definitely not supposed to come off. The preloaded cylinder trick also seems a bit hard to manage with percussion caps, since they seem liable to fall off. Getting the little bastards onto the ends of the chambers was not an easy process to begin with either. Granted the near freezing temperatures that day probably did not improve our manual dexterity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakyCheeseMan

I know that a number of real-life military organizations use them, but I'm not sure how much of that is a practical decision, and how much of it is cultural/ceremonial - and if they are practical, is that only in "Modern" combat settings? (where ranged weaponry is the norm, and armour is a much different thing than it would be in a medieval setting.)?

---

The Ghurkas are renown for using khurki and they're regarded as some of the finest soldiers in the British Army, so that should say something for their practical use.

As for the cutting, I think JustSomeGuy posted a couple of cutting videos with his khukri in the previous thread, and they did a fairly good job on the pig's feet.
In a combat setting, during Afghanistan a unit of Ghurkas were tasked to kill an enemy commander and bring back his body for identification. They came under fire and were forced to abandon the body, but one enterprising soldier decapitated it first and took the head back for identification (he got in trouble for that).

It's still only essentially a large knife though, primarily intended for all-round utility, and pitting it up against a proper melee weapon (sword, axe, etc) and/or armour (plate, mail, etc) shows up its shortcomings for combat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rrgg

Here's a question for those more familiar with re-enactment. How difficult would it be to physically "hold" someone with a one-handed spear? I mean as in using the spear to stop a charging attacker even if it doesn't penetrate their shield or armor. Does the type of grip make a difference? Is it even something that comes up often?

---

Given a one handed spear is primarily used to stab someone in the face, I would say that would stop them effectively. :smalltongue:

On a more serious note, to actually stop someone charging requires a better grip, mainly support for the end of the spear (both hands gripping the haft is unlikely to do it unless you've got arms and wrists like a gorilla).
This can be done by either placing the rear hand over the end or by bracing the spear between the ground and your back foot, using your front hand to hold the spear up.
You could theoretically use your body/hip to brace the end, but I don't recommend it as it [redacted] hurts when the force of a charging person in armour is applied at the other end.

In my experience of re-enactment (Norman times), you tend to use your shield to stop chargers - the commonly held view of shields being only being useful defensively doesn't last long after you've been pushed back or smacked in the face by one.

Speaking of the American Civil War, is there anything to the idea that it saw unusually brutal casualties in part because of the infantry tactics employed? I've heard (possibly lindybeige, I forget) that European observers were horrified by the way the infantry lines would keep advancing on each other slowly, firing volleys over and over, never making a bayonet charge (the "proper" way to fight up until then) ? Was this actually done, and was it a new or uncommon thing? If it is true, what was the reason for the different tactics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

In my experience of re-enactment (Norman times), you tend to use your shield to stop chargers - the commonly held view of shields being only being useful defensively doesn't last long after you've been pushed back or smacked in the face by one.

---

Greek hoplite used one of two thrusts with spears. And underhanded forward thrust that was easier to block but put most of the weight of the attacker into it, and an overhand strike that was weaker but was hard to block. There's very little to suggest that they used the spear itself to stop a charge. By and large their shields were much more effect for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhynn

Speaking of the American Civil War, is there anything to the idea that it saw unusually brutal casualties in part because of the infantry tactics employed? I've heard (possibly lindybeige, I forget) that European observers were horrified by the way the infantry lines would keep advancing on each other slowly, firing volleys over and over, never making a bayonet charge (the "proper" way to fight up until then) ? Was this actually done, and was it a new or uncommon thing? If it is true, what was the reason for the different tactics?

---

a few things, really.

first, what works in the heavily cultivated farmlands of Europe isn't what works in the much less "tamed" American rural areas, as we brits found out in the War of Independence. The American countryside was simply wilder than European countryside, due to the much shorter period of "civilisation", so a lot of open field tactics that worked well in Europe did not always work so well in the rougher American warzones.


second, the tactics and drill you teach to a long service soldier in peacetime are not the same as you teach to a short term conscript while fighting a war. you need a simplified, easy to teach set of drills that they can pretty much learn as they march to the battlefield. as the war progressed, the tactics naturally changed and evolved as the soldiers became better at their jobs and could move beyond the "billy basics" they started with.

third, at the start of the war, both European and American tactical thought was firmly rooted in the Napoleonic wars, and what worked well in them. however, advances in technology had significantly changed the situation, with infantry fire being vastly more effective in the ACW, which drastically broke the old tactical system wide open.


thirdly, while the bayonet was often threatened in the Napoleonic wars, it was quite rare for it to be actually used to stab someone with. in something like 90%+ of the English language accounts of bayonet charges being launched, one side or the other gives way and brakes before contact, normally the defenders ("sod this, I'm not waiting for them to get here!"). I must add the cravat about English language because I am not familiar with non English accounts, but I understand that the same is true. bayonets were more often used to ward off cavalry, but even then, the horses would not charge onto a row of spikes, so it was still uncommon for them to get blood on their bayonets.

it was normal for units to exchange volley fire for some time before someone attempted to get in close. generally, a charge was only attempted on a wavering enemy weakened by fire form artillery and muskets.

Napoleonic cannon could get close enough to infantry to fire canister ("grapeshot", or a big bag or musket balls that turned the cannon into a massive shotgun), which was devastating to infantry, while still out of musket range. the infantry could not spread out for fear of cavalry, which could cut down open order infantry.

however, the ACW era percussion rifles were able to engage artillery close enough to use canister, so artillery could not get close enough to be as lethal as it was in the past. cavalry, too, could no long charge home like they could before, as the infantry could now just shoot them to pieces, without needing to retreat into a square and wait them out (which was when the artillery was moved foreword to blast the square with grapeshot)



In short, the European observers were applying standards to the war that weren't relevant to the actual situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fusilier

Sometimes a spare preloaded cylinder could be carried. I think the cylinders on Remington revolvers were relatively easy to swap out. But it doesn't seem to have been that common.

---

I think the Texas Rangers carried a bunch (I want to say something like ten each, but that would be way off) of extra cylinders for their revolvers. This gave them a decisive advantage the first time the went after the Comanche with their new revolvers and were actually able to match the Comanche's bows in terms of volume of fire.

The revolver would have been used pretty much just in close combat. Before contact, the officer should be giving orders, not fighting. And melee combat was rare, and usually pretty quickly over, so six rounds isn't that bad. A sword for backup is certainly not a bad idea.

In fact, European observers commented that the Americans often didn't press home the attack with the bayonet, instead exchanging fire. Which results in more casualties, but less decisive attacks.

OK, more a source question than anything else. This summer I might have some time to write something besides statistics proofs, and was thinking about working on an idea for a bronze age planetary romance I've had kicking around for a while.

Thus my question; anybody have good sources for the non-historian about the late bronze ages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhynn

Speaking of the American Civil War, is there anything to the idea that it saw unusually brutal casualties in part because of the infantry tactics employed? I've heard (possibly lindybeige, I forget) that European observers were horrified by the way the infantry lines would keep advancing on each other slowly, firing volleys over and over, never making a bayonet charge (the "proper" way to fight up until then) ? Was this actually done, and was it a new or uncommon thing? If it is true, what was the reason for the different tactics?

---

There might be some truth to this, most charges during the Civil War were resolved at some distance (30-40 yards), if the defenders didn't break at that point, the attackers often stopped to exchange volleys. Some officers experimented with having their troops attack with unloaded muskets, in hope that they would press home.

However, for some reason, people tend to hold up the American Civil War as though it was the only war ever fought at that time. That the weaponry used was untried and therefore they were in entirely new circumstances, and they had to figure out new tactics as they went on. This is an extreme exaggeration at best, and totally bogus at worse. Two other wars, fought with similar weaponry in the years immediately preceding the Civil War should be considered:

The first is the Crimean War -- which was a war that, in an interesting similarity to American Civil War, ended with a large, incomplete siege of a major city.

The second is the Franco-Austrian War. This war was short but noted for its ferocity and high casualty rates (it was this war that led to the creation of the Red Cross). In this war the French, who were victorious, were known to have used very aggressive tactics, and a lot of frontal charges. This influenced much of European tactical thinking, and may have led observers to be critical of American tactics.

Could the American Civil War have been fought more decisively if they had used more aggressive tactics? It is not a settled debate!

Americans were in a new circumstance, but it wasn't the weaponry and technology that made it new, it was the scale of the conflict. You had huge numbers of people being recruited. Karl Marx observed that in 1861 (when the armies were just starting to be raised), if you took every single soldier in the regular army and made them a drill instructor (which many would not be suited for), there still wouldn't be nearly enough drill instructors for the Union Army that Lincoln was raising at that early point! So the fact that there was a lot of bumbling about, not really knowing how to fight battles, in my opinion, has more to do with the lack of training and experience in warfare, than in some supposed revolution in weaponry.

EDIT-- I just wanted to point out that this is probably true of most armies in most wars. Unless that army has had recent experience in a major war, there's always some "figuring out" that has to be done when entering a new conflict. In the case of the American Civil War, the effect was probably exacerbated by the scale of the war and the smallness of the American peacetime army.

fusilier's username reminded me of something I've wondered for a while.

What's the difference between a fusil and a musket? And was the dragon firearm just an early version of a carbine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tyler

fusilier's username reminded me of something I've wondered for a while.

What's the difference between a fusil and a musket? And was the dragon firearm just an early version of a carbine?

---

Hehe, that's a big "depends upon who you ask" kind of question. :-)

In English, one description I've heard given for "fusil" is, "a smoothbore rifle"! Despite this being a total non-sequitur, it's actually a good way to remember how the English think of a fusil. In the context of the 18th century, when these terms seem to have been established, a fusil, was much like a civilian rifle -- lighter and smaller caliber than a musket, it was usually more finely made than a military weapon. A fusil was usually a hunting weapon, but light infantry units were some times armed with it, and an officer might carry one.

The French applied the term fusil to weapons that the English would have called a musket. But if you look closely at a Charleville musket, and compare it to a Brown Bess, you might understand how that happened. The French Charleville is not quite so simple and basic of a weapon compared to the Brown Bess, but even more so when compared to earlier matchlock muskets.

These terms evolved in different ways in different nations. By the end of the 19th century, the Italian Carcano long rifle was called a "fucile", whereas the short carbine version of the weapon was, ironically, called a "moschetto" (i.e. musket)!

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Dragon" firearm (Dragoon?). They tended to be shorter weapons, with a variety of names applied to them, from Arquebus, to Petronel. Carabine, was a name established fairly early, although seems to have taken a while to become predominant. Strangely, some weapons that could be called carbines, were also called "musketoons" in the 19th century (and perhaps 18th?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fusilier

Hehe, that's a big "depends upon who you ask" kind of question. :-)

In English, one description I've heard given for "fusil" is, "a smoothbore rifle"! Despite this being a total non-sequitur, it's actually a good way to remember how the English think of a fusil. In the context of the 18th century, when these terms seem to have been established, a fusil, was much like a civilian rifle -- lighter and smaller caliber than a musket, it was usually more finely made than a military weapon. A fusil was usually a hunting weapon, but light infantry units were some times armed with it, and an officer might carry one.

The French applied the term fusil to weapons that the English would have called a musket. But if you look closely at a Charleville musket, and compare it to a Brown Bess, you might understand how that happened. The French Charleville is not quite so simple and basic of a weapon compared to the Brown Bess, but even more so when compared to earlier matchlock muskets.

These terms evolved in different ways in different nations. By the end of the 19th century, the Italian Carcano long rifle was called a "fucile", whereas the short carbine version of the weapon was, ironically, called a "moschetto" (i.e. musket)!

---

Awesome! That explains a lot.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Dragon" firearm (Dragoon?). They tended to be shorter weapons, with a variety of names applied to them, from Arquebus, to Petronel. Carabine, was a name established fairly early, although seems to have taken a while to become predominant. Strangely, some weapons that could be called carbines, were also called "musketoons" in the 19th century (and perhaps 18th?).

---

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to be. I've seen it referenced a few times, either as dragon or as dragoon, and the few times I have seen it, it's used as an explanation of where the term 'dragoon' came from. Given the association with mounted infantry, I thought it may have been an earlier name for carbine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brother Oni

The Ghurkas are renown for using khurki and they're regarded as some of the finest soldiers in the British Army, so that should say something for their practical use.

As for the cutting, I think JustSomeGuy posted a couple of cutting videos with his khukri in the previous thread, and they did a fairly good job on the pig's feet.
In a combat setting, during Afghanistan a unit of Ghurkas were tasked to kill an enemy commander and bring back his body for identification. They came under fire and were forced to abandon the body, but one enterprising soldier decapitated it first and took the head back for identification (he got in trouble for that).

It's still only essentially a large knife though, primarily intended for all-round utility, and pitting it up against a proper melee weapon (sword, axe, etc) and/or armour (plate, mail, etc) shows up its shortcomings for combat.

---

*Nods* I knew the Ghurkas used it, and I'm familiar with their reputation - I just wasn't sure if their use of kukris was a purely pragmatic decision, or something based more on culture/history.

So... the impression I'm getting is that a kukri packs a lot of lethality for its weight, and has a ton of utility applications on top of that, but it's simply too small to be a front-linesman's weapon of choice (and the shape doesn't translate well to a larger size). Is that accurate?

Also, if it is, does the kurki have any other major weaknesses (say, compared to other weapons of its size/weight)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakyCheeseMan

So... the impression I'm getting is that a kukri packs a lot of lethality for its weight, and has a ton of utility applications on top of that, but it's simply too small to be a front-linesman's weapon of choice (and the shape doesn't translate well to a larger size). Is that accurate?

---

The kukri scales up to one-handed sword just fine; forwards curved weapons built along quite similar lines and known variously as the falcata, machaera and kopis enjoyed significant popularity through the ancient world. I have in fact seen it proposed that the Indian kukri is a long distant descendant of the Greek kopis, brought there by Alexander's troops.

The falcata seems to have been invented by Celtic* peoples in Iberia (Spain), independently of the kopis. It seems to have been employed by Carthaginian mercenaries during the Punic Wars. Given the almost uniformly excellent performance of such troops, it seems to have worked just fine.


*The Greeks get all the credit in antiquity, but when it comes to inventing arms and armor the Celts have them beat hands down. The hoplon is great and all, but it isn't nearly as important a development as chainmail or pattern forging steel.

Quote:

---

Also, if it is, does the kurki have any other major weaknesses (say, compared to other weapons of its size/weight)?

---

Rather transparently, it won't be as long.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warty goblin

The kukri scales up to one-handed sword just fine; forwards curved weapons built along quite similar lines and known variously as the falcata, machaera and kopis enjoyed significant popularity through the ancient world. I have in fact seen it proposed that the Indian kukri is a long distant descendant of the Greek kopis, brought there by Alexander's troops.

---

*Scurries off to Google image search*

Quote:

---

The falcata seems to have been invented by Celtic* peoples in Iberia (Spain), independently of the kopis. It seems to have been employed by Carthaginian mercenaries during the Punic Wars. Given the almost uniformly excellent performance of such troops, it seems to have worked just fine.

---

Huh.

On a related note, what are the benefits of forward curves like that? With the kukri, I understand that it actually is supposed to make stabbing easier (straight wrist and all)... that doesn't seem to be the case with a larger blade. Intuitively, I feel like it gives more chopping power, but I'm unable to explain why mechanically.

Quote:

---

Rather transparently, it won't be as long.

---

Huh... it seems like the difference would only be an inch or two, if that (the curve isn't all that severe)... or do you just mean the width of the blade along the curve making it shorter than a longer, thinner blade of the same weight?

Actually, that's another question - how much do very small (say, 2-3 inches) differences in reach matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakyCheeseMan

*Scurries off to Google image search*
Huh.

On a related note, what are the benefits of forward curves like that? With the kukri, I understand that it actually is supposed to make stabbing easier (straight wrist and all)... that doesn't seem to be the case with a larger blade. Intuitively, I feel like it gives more chopping power, but I'm unable to explain why mechanically.

---

Increased cutting power is generally the main benefit. See, you get the best cutting action from a blade when the edge is being pushed or pulled across the surface of what it's cutting. Think about how you chop a carrot. A curved edge makes the action of cutting into a surface draw the edge as the blade passes through.

Now usually a curved sword is sharp on the outside of the curve, although it may be sharpened on both sides for a short length near the point. Even with a straight sword, if cutting with the 'forwards' edge, your hand usually leads the blade somewhat when swinging it. When you hit something, you tend to draw the edge across it just due to that - although you should also push or pull the hilt to get deeper penetration. Having the sword curve backwards complements this.

So why does a falcata, kukri or kopis curve forwards? Look closely at the edge. Near the tip, where the blade starts to narrow, it essentially is curved backwards as well. If you hit right near there, the blade effectively has a lot of curvature, and so can cut even better. It's also quite broad there, and broad blades - those with significant distance between the edges - cut better than thin blades as a rule.

The other reason for that rather unique shape is that it shifts the balance closer to the tip. This basically means it hits harder. Interestingly, later, more traditionally curved swords such as the kilaj had wider blades near the tip, for very much the same purpose. A blade with a center of mass farther from the grip delivers a harder strike than it would if its balance was closer to the hilt. In general.

Quote:

---

Huh... it seems like the difference would only be an inch or two, if that (the curve isn't all that severe)... or do you just mean the width of the blade along the curve making it shorter than a longer, thinner blade of the same weight?

Actually, that's another question - how much do very small (say, 2-3 inches) differences in reach matter?

---

Sometimes not all that much; sometimes a lot. It really, really depends on technique. More length is seldom a bad thing though. Of course for cutting, a wider blade is always nice too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakyCheeseMan

So... the impression I'm getting is that a kukri packs a lot of lethality for its weight, and has a ton of utility applications on top of that, but it's simply too small to be a front-linesman's weapon of choice (and the shape doesn't translate well to a larger size). Is that accurate?

---

Yup, I'd agree with that assessment, although warty's excellent posts have pointed out, the shape scales up quite nicely.

Just in case it wasn't emphasised, the khukuri as it stands, is just too small to be a primary weapon at 15-18" long. In comparison, the gladius, the standard roman infantry short sword, is about twice as long at 25-32".

That said, in the current world where the normal military fighting knife is about 12" long (eg. the KA-BAR) or usually designed to be attached as a bayonet, the khukuri has a distinct advantage in reach, weight and intimidation (I believe machetes aren't standard issue in most deployments).

The Ghurkas still have theirs because of their culture and traditions - it just also happens to be a highly effective weapon/tool at the same time. :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by warty goblin

Sometimes not all that much; sometimes a lot. It really, really depends on technique. More length is seldom a bad thing though.

---

[Purile schoolboy mode] That's what she said. :smalltongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storm Bringer

thirdly, while the bayonet was often threatened in the Napoleonic wars, it was quite rare for it to be actually used to stab someone with. in something like 90%+ of the English language accounts of bayonet charges being launched, one side or the other gives way and brakes before contact, normally the defenders ("sod this, I'm not waiting for them to get here!"). I must add the cravat about English language because I am not familiar with non English accounts, but I understand that the same is true. bayonets were more often used to ward off cavalry, but even then, the horses would not charge onto a row of spikes, so it was still uncommon for them to get blood on their bayonets.

---

That's sort of what I was getting at - as I understand it, bayonet charges weren't for killing the enemy, they were for making the enemy run away. Once one or both sides charge, somebody's going to turn tail and run rather than get in a deadly, nasty melee. Rather like pikes - AFAIK, the best anyone can figure out, a "push of pikes" wouldn't actually happen (if they had, the first rows would have been killed instantly), and what's more likely is that pikemen marched at each other and one side faltered and retreated? Supposedly, Swiss pikemen got their reputation from marching so damn disciplined that no one could imagine they'd be the first to give up... basically victory by bluffing.

There's been two effective bayonet charges (very small-scale) by UK troops in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, haven't there? IIRC the results were basically the same - the prospect of being face-to-face with someone wielding a bayonet just makes the enemy break and run.

Maybe this is the wrong thread for the question, but if you were going to design a sword for a superhumanly strong but normal size warrior, what would it look like?

Assuming the wielder was say, 25x normal human strength...so significantly superhuman but way off the Superman-type deal.

Would the ideal length be something like a standard two-handed sword? What about weight, I'm guessing heavily overweight to smash other weapons would be useful? What about materials, would some kind modern material be superior to steel, if weight is not an option?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tyler

fusilier's username reminded me of something I've wondered for a while.

What's the difference between a fusil and a musket? And was the dragon firearm just an early version of a carbine?

---

the version of the story I know is that a "fusil" was used to describe early flintlocks, back when they were not standard issue. hence, fusiliers were "special" troops, because they could be deployed to protect things like powder stores without worrying that their slow matches would set off he powder. once flintlocks became standard, the name was kept for pride, basically (like the Grenadier Guards, who for a long time did not have grenades).

Quote:

---

There's been two effective bayonet charges (very small-scale) by UK troops in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, haven't there? IIRC the results were basically the same - the prospect of being face-to-face with someone wielding a bayonet just makes the enemy break and run.

---

basically, yes. the attacks were platoon scale (30 odd blokes), as far as I know, and in both cases, the defenders were so shocked that the normally cautious and casualty-adverse British were charging at them with a sharp pointy things screaming bloody murder that they just fled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr Beer

Maybe this is the wrong thread for the question, but if you were going to design a sword for a superhumanly strong but normal size warrior, what would it look like?

Assuming the wielder was say, 25x normal human strength...so significantly superhuman but way off the Superman-type deal.

Would the ideal length be something like a standard two-handed sword? What about weight, I'm guessing heavily overweight to smash other weapons would be useful? What about materials, would some kind modern material be superior to steel, if weight is not an option?

---

I am no weapons expert so take what I say with a grain of salt so to speak.

But If you are dealing with super strength, particularly on that magnitude, I would assume a sword would be your last choice of weapon. With strength like that you would not need a cutting edge to effectively kill anything you hit meaning you are probably better of with a bludgeoning weapon, particularly because as a whole bludgeoning weapons tend to be sturdier weapons, which will be needed given the force of the blows you will be dealing. The Advantage of that massive strength means you can wield a weapon may times the normal weight of equivalent weapon and still keep it wieldable in a single hand if you desire a shield for extra protection, so I would say the weapon length would be somewhere around the length of your average hand and a half sword as to not make the weapon overly unwieldy but still gives you many options as far as wielding it. As far as a real world equivalent I would say you should check out kanabo-tetsubo and assume it would be made of metal and thicker than your average historical equivalent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Storm Bringer

basically, yes. the attacks were platoon scale (30 odd blokes), as far as I know, and in both cases, the defenders were so shocked that the normally cautious and casualty-adverse British were charging at them with a sharp pointy things screaming bloody murder that they just fled.

---

Only semi-serious, but I guess the screaming is probably a useful component... I expect it has a positive psychological effect on the charging screamers and a negative one on the guys at the other end. :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedloon

I am no weapons expert so take what I say with a grain of salt so to speak.

But If you are dealing with super strength, particularly on that magnitude, I would assume a sword would be your last choice of weapon. With strength like that you would not need a cutting edge to effectively kill anything you hit meaning you are probably better of with a bludgeoning weapon, particularly because as a whole bludgeoning weapons tend to be sturdier weapons, which will be needed given the force of the blows you will be dealing.

---

Well boxers can generate 5000 newtons of force. If you make that 25 times higher you get 125000 newtons. That's the rough equivalent of 12.75 TONS of force. Its like getting hit with a good sized truck, but with somebody's fist! If you were 25 times stronger than a human you don't need weapons, you can just beat people to death with fists that hit like a speeding cement truck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Tyler

fusilier's username reminded me of something I've wondered for a while.

What's the difference between a fusil and a musket? And was the dragon firearm just an early version of a carbine?

---

A dragon is a type of short blunderbus or blunderbus-pistol. It's sort of an early shotgun. They were used by mounted troops that fought on foot... hence, dragoon.

I think they were also popular with ship-crews and marines.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

Well boxers can generate 5000 newtons of force. If you make that 25 times higher you get 125000 newtons. That's the rough equivalent of 12.75 TONS of force. Its like getting hit with a good sized truck, but with somebody's fist! If you were 25 times stronger than a human you don't need weapons, you can just beat people to death with fists that hit like a speeding cement truck.

---

essentially the logic I was going with when I suggested a bludgeoning weapon. I am assuming the super human still has concern for his own skin thus the need to use a weapon which gives the advantage of reach as well as mechanical advantage. If you think of the fact the average 1.5 sword will be around 3 pounds and can be easily wielded by a normal human our super human is swinging around a 75 pound bludgeon, for a lack of a better term, with equal agility and he will have little problems with your average human.

that or just throw rocks... which is what I suggested last time this question came up a few weeks ago.


G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FreakyCheeseMan

Huh... it seems like the difference would only be an inch or two, if that (the curve isn't all that severe)... or do you just mean the width of the blade along the curve making it shorter than a longer, thinner blade of the same weight?

Actually, that's another question - how much do very small (say, 2-3 inches) differences in reach matter?

---

Yeah, both the curvature, and general cross-section form the weapon that's going to naturally have way less reach than more 'straight' design.

If 2-3 inches really matters, depends on really dozens of things, like terrain, situation, users skills and mind-state, numbers of combatants, if people can actually use reach, or are failing into one another, and so on.

But generally, yeah, it can mean a lot, 3 inches of blade in cut will very often be just enough to cause a lot of bodily harm, when they reach.

And generally, reach difference will be generally much larger, kukri's have pronounced curvature etc.

Large kukri will weight about 2 pounds and have blade like 18 inches long in straight line, at most.

2 pound sword/large dagger things can be way longer than 2 feet, while steel having quite bold, broad profiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beleriphon

Well boxers can generate 5000 newtons of force. If you make that 25 times higher you get 125000 newtons. That's the rough equivalent of 12.75 TONS of force. Its like getting hit with a good sized truck, but with somebody's fist! If you were 25 times stronger than a human you don't need weapons, you can just beat people to death with fists that hit like a speeding cement truck.

---

Specifically, a 19 metric ton tractor trailer truck accelerating as fast as an Aston Martin (~6.5 m/s^2), unless I've got the math all wrong. (force / acceleration = mass, mass * acceleration = force, force / mass = acceleration)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galloglaich

that or just throw rocks... which is what I suggested last time this question came up a few weeks ago.

---

By way of a funny coincidence, this is also the best way to leverage great strength for damage in D&D 3E... :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crazedloon

If you think of the fact the average 1.5 sword will be around 3 pounds and can be easily wielded by a normal human our super human is swinging around a 75 pound bludgeon, for a lack of a better term, with equal agility and he will have little problems with your average human.

---

Are you sure about "equal agility" ? You generally can't just scale things up and have them behave "the same, only bigger." Good weapons - swords particularly - are carefully balanced and shaped, and take advantage of the properties of their metal and their own construction. A 20' metal pole is probably going to be a slightly horrible weapon, because when you're turning the end you're holding, the far end (that you're trying to hit someone with) is going to be making a wider turn, and the weight of the weapon is going to put strain on it. "25 times stronger" doesn't mean much of anything, but a 75 pound (assuming stronger = mass/lifting) sword, for instance, is almost certainly going to be awful.

FWIW, people generally didn't get bigger swords just because they were stronger. Bigger swords like zweihanders were for specific purposes, and the same 2-pound arming sword would be just as good a weapon for the big guy as for the small guy, generally.

Really, though, why would you even bother with a weapon? If your fist delivers the force of an Aston Martin -speed tractor trailer (another interpretation of "25 times stronger"), I can't imagine a weapon making much of a difference. It'd probably just be demolished. (Although I have to wonder if the fists are also durable enough to endure that force, in which case you can probably forget about armor, too - if your body can take that kind of force, you're pretty much impervious to man-portable weapons.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhynn

Specifically, a 19 metric ton tractor trailer truck accelerating as fast as an Aston Martin (~6.5 m/s^2), unless I've got the math all wrong. (force / acceleration = mass, mass * acceleration = force, force / mass = acceleration)

---

Well, 1 newton is just 1kg per m/s2, so it seems roughly correct.


Honestly, though, something being '25 times' stronger is already getting rather abstract.

Specifically, to actually use even tiny fractions of that force, muscle/skeletal system would also need to be made from some indestructium. To actually survive that forces. So we quickly need more supernatural qualities.

As far as punching goes, increase in static, or even dynamic strength obviously has no direct effect on punching power.

Punching is essentially swinging ones body in coordinated way, to hit stuff with a lot of energy.

Being able to act with 25 times greater force doesn't, in any way, mean that one will be able to punch 25 times harder.

Fist, forearm, shoulder, back, etc. still weight about the same, and can just as fast, so applying some ridiculous amount of push/torque behind that can only empower the impact so much.

More 'rational' way of unarmed fighting for such physical fallacy would be grappling, I guess.

Creature that was so powerful, however it's possible, could just sewer the tendons/bones without any wrestling/jiu-jitsu/judo leverage needed.


Chimpanzees can already mutilate other apes horribly with their bare hands, and they're obviously just 'possibly' powerful. They can also bite though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spiryt

Honestly, though, something being '25 times' stronger is already getting rather abstract.

---

Yeah, I honestly feel like the number was pulled out of thin air. It doesn't MEAN anything by itself. Lifting 25 times more (than who?) doesn't translate to hitting 25 times harder (than who?)... and once you're outside of theoretical/possible human ability, it's impossible to say anything definitive anyway.

And yeah, delivery of force is a very different matter, anyway. (For that matter, the truck was a horrible comparison because it's not shaped anything like a fist!) How fast you decelerate on impact is going to have more of an influence there, right? Force from a blow isn't exerted in one instant, it's exerted over fractions of a second.

And yeah, grabbing and squeezing/pulling would probably have completely horrible effects with that sort of strength, too. Grab the head and squeeze it into a bloody raisin, grab the arms and pluck them off, etc.