Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[warty goblin]

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...

[Brother Oni]

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[Beleriphon]

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.

[Storm Bringer]

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.

[Fortinbras]

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.

[Mike_G]

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.

[warty goblin]

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?

[fusilier]

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.

[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?

[fusilier]

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?).

[The Tyler]

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.

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.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

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)?

[warty goblin]

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.

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.

[FreakyCheeseMan]

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*

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.

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?

[warty goblin]

*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.

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.

[Brother Oni]

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.

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.

[Rhynn]

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.

[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?

[Storm Bringer]

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).

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.

[crazedloon]

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.

[Rhynn]

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.

[Beleriphon]

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.

[Galloglaich]

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

[crazedloon]

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.

[Galloglaich]

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


G

[Spiryt]

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.

[Rhynn]

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)

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...

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.)

[Spiryt]

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.

[Rhynn]

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.