Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[Brother Oni]

Dunno, that is why I am asking. Never seen the complete text of 1363 or the one about labourers later on.

Hmm, I stand corrected.

Apparently there are a couple of laws regarding compulsory archery:

1252 Assize of Arms, requiring 'burghers, free tenants, villagers and others of fifteen years of age to sixty years of age' to have various armour, weapons and mounts dependent on how much land and cattle they owned. Possession of land which generated 40-100 shillings of annual rent meant you were required to own a bow (or crossbow if you were a forester).

The (Second) Archery Law of 1363 decreed compulsory 2 hours practise on a Sunday to be monitored by the local clergyman (apparently never repealed!), with no other sport to be undertaken on that day.

The 1511 Archery Act clarified ownership to 'All sorts of Men under the Age of Forty Years' with some exceptions (see link in previous post). A separate act this year discouraged the use of cross bows.

The 1514 Archery Act put the 1511 Act into perpetual law (presumably the 1511 Act was written so that it was to be reviewed at a later date).

The Unlawful Games Act 1541 reinforced the practice of archery: "All Men under the Age of sixty Years "shall have Bows and Arrows for shooting. Men-Children between Seven "Years and Seventeen shall have a Bow and 2 Shafts. Men about Seventeen "Years of Age shall keep a Bow and 4 Arrows - Penalty 6s.8d".
It also set other things regarding archery including bow construction, prices, use by foreign citizens, etc (see previous post)

Apparently another Act in 1542 set a minimum target distance of '11 score yards' (220yds) for anybody over the age of 24 (can't find the name of this one).

It's not rifled, has a bore of ~2 inches (estimated from illustrations), and has a tiny hole in the breech to stick a match into, mounted on a length of wood to be held steady under one arm. It functionally seems to be a tiny cannon on a stick.

You're quite correct in this. I've found a thread where an owner of such a hand bombard gives the dimensions of a couple of his pieces: link.

Measurements of three mentioned in the thread:

Bronze barrel tiller (stick), late 15th century: overall length 146.8 cm, barrel 56.6 cm, caliber 13 mm

Wrought iron barrel, with remains of its original tiller stock preserved in the socket, ca. 1450-60: overall length 72.7 cm, barrel 56.1 cm, caliber at the widened muzzle 20 mm, narrowing to ca. 16 mm after about one inch.

Wrought iron haquebut barrel: overall length including the socket of 99.8 cm, barrel bore length of 79.7 cm, caliber of 26 mm, weight 15.4 kg.

I'm uncertain if the game rules for the thing are playing up the kick it's got (I suspect yes), but Pathfinder culverines knock the wielder prone if they're fired without being braced on a window/wall or a stand.

I can't find a reference to how much powder charge they used, but the pathfinder culverin uses 4 charges of black powder per shot according to the PFSRD. The game says a musket uses a single charge (a Brown Bess musket uses ~110-120 gr per charge), so that's equivalent to the kickback of 4 musket shots (~440gr).

Since depictions of the culverin show it being fired freely underarm, I would say bracing it between the ground and your foot would be a reasonable compromise, but check with your GM.

Would the simple construction and heavy iron make it reasonably effective, would it just hit something and have the cannon portion snap off the wooden handle, or would it deform the metal barrel and ruin it as a firearm?

It would be durable enough to use as an emergency club, but its weight makes it far too unwieldy (15+kg for the wrought iron example listed earlier). For comparison, a 16ft pike weighs ~9kg and a zweihander sword is ~6.6kg.

[Silver Swift]

During the days of the muzzle loader guns (when the main limiting factor in a fire fight was how long it took to reload) were multi-barrelled guns a thing? I know there were people running around with entire belts of disposable single-shot guns and it seems that having multiple barrels would be a simpler alternative that wouldn't all that much more difficult to make.

[Haldir]

I am looking for some solid scientific information on the effectiveness of weapons vrs armor. Specifically, I want to know how much force is required to deal fatal or very harmful damage through chain, scale, and plate armors using a piercing weapon such as a longspear, a cleaving weapon such as an axe, or a blunt force weapon such as a mace or flail.

Does anyone know of any studies done on this, or have any leads on researchers who might have done such a study?

Spoiler

Show

As a base reference, we know that the human body can withstand around 3k-4k newtons of force before a bone breaks, according to this source http://www.livescience.com/6040-brut...ans-punch.html

[warty goblin]

Force isn't really an appropriate measure of how effective a weapon is. There's just too much variation in how weapons interact with tissue and armor, because many weapons don't rely on applying lots of force. A 20 lbs sledge can apply a lot of force, but isn't a particularly good weapon of war. A long single handed blade like the Celts fought with can apply far less, but is a better weapon. A Roman gladius, which is still smaller proved a far more effective blade than that.

The better measure of how effective a weapon is is how well you can use it to make somebody dead, seriously injured, or running away.

[Brother Oni]

During the days of the muzzle loader guns (when the main limiting factor in a fire fight was how long it took to reload) were multi-barrelled guns a thing? I know there were people running around with entire belts of disposable single-shot guns and it seems that having multiple barrels would be a simpler alternative that wouldn't all that much more difficult to make.

Multi-barrel muzzle loaders did exist, but they were expensive to make and often the additional triggering mechanisms were unreliable:

They essentially came in two variants: volley guns which fired all their barrels at once and pepperboxes which fire repeatedly much like a revolver.

Then you have the just plain weird stuff:

Spoiler

Show

Duckfoot pistol

Force isn't really an appropriate measure of how effective a weapon is. There's just too much variation in how weapons interact with tissue and armor, because many weapons don't rely on applying lots of force.

Agreed. In addition, the location of impact has a significant effect - sure the torso can take 3-4 kN, but you only need about 1.2 kN to the throat to cause significant injury.

That said, there have been a couple of penetration tests against armour by melee weapons, but they're generally not very rigorous due to difficulty of making them rigorous.

I know of some quite scientifically sound penetration tests of bows and crossbows, but I don't remember them generating a force value due to issues as warty said.

[Haldir]

Blades are not at all effective against decently manufactured armor, which is why I did not include them in my question. Force is the only appropriate scientific metric for judging the effectiveness of weapons against armor. Ideally, we find a study where a machine used a piercing, cleaving and blunt weapon against a plate, scale, and chain armor X number of times at forces A, B, and C etc. etc. and averaged out the forces necessary to penetrate and/or deal lethal force.

I should not except the larger, two handed blades, which would probably fall under the purview of a "cleaving" weapon for my particular inquiry. Apologies.

Last edit, I swear- To clarify, I am not trying to gauge weapon effectiveness so much as I am trying to get an idea of armor effectiveness.

[Incanur]

For comparison, a 16ft pike weighs ~9kg and a zweihander sword is ~6.6kg.

I don't know of any definite sources for pike weight, but I feel confident many if not most sixteenth century pikes weight much less than 9kg - more like 3.5-4.5kg or 8-10lbs. Peter Connolly's reconstruction 18ft sarissa with an ash haft weighs 4.54kg or 10.2lbs. I can't imagine anyone perform the techniques described by Joachim Meyer and George Silver with 9kg pikes.

The majority of zweihanders and like weapons intended for combat weighed 2.3-3.6kg or 5-8lbs.

[Brother Oni]

Blades are not at all effective against decently manufactured armor, which is why I did not include them in my question.

If blades aren't cleaving weapons, then what would you class them as?

Force is the only appropriate scientific metric for judging the effectiveness of weapons against armor. Ideally, we find a study where a machine used a piercing, cleaving and blunt weapon against a plate, scale, and chain armor X number of times at forces A, B, and C etc. etc. and averaged out the forces necessary to penetrate and/or deal lethal force.

Except that we can't agree on the definition of 'lethal force'. Whether it penetrates or not is a much better metric in my opinion, although unfortunately rather qualitative .

However the best I've seen for melee weapons are things along the lines of these videos: Link1; link2.

About the only organisation I can think of that might do proper testing is the Royal Armouries in Leeds with plenty of references to their testing, but I can't find an actual paper or published study.

I don't know of any definite sources for pike weight, but I feel confident many if not most sixteenth century pikes weight much less than 9kg - more like 3.5-4.5kg or 8-10lbs.

The 17th century ECW replica pike I handled during the recent re-enactment day was definitely heavier than 4.5kg and both the re-enactor and the wikipedia article says 8-10kg.

I can't imagine anyone perform the techniques described by Joachim Meyer and George Silver with 9kg pikes.

Since I haven't read the techniques, I can't say whether it's possible or not (the design of the weapon I handled postdates both of them however). That said, I'm not sure there's not much you can do with a 16ft pike except poke the enemy and hold it steady to ward off cavalry - it's just too long to do much technically with it.

The majority of zweihanders and like weapons intended for combat weighed 2.3-3.6kg or 5-8lbs.

I took the higher value for a very heavy zweihander (Pier Gerlofs Donia's to be precise) to reinforce the point of how unwieldy trying to use a hand culverin as club would be.

[Haldir]

If blades aren't cleaving weapons, then what would you class them as?

I would make a distinction between cleaving and slashing, but I have very strong opinions on the usefulness of swords.

Except that we can't agree on the definition of 'lethal force'. Whether it penetrates or not is a much better metric in my opinion, although unfortunately rather qualitative .

I think I can agree that penetration is most likely going to be lethal or harmful enough to qualify for my purposes. But you can certainly transfer enough force through some armor to be harmful. What I want to know is how many newtons it takes to create a fatal PSI.

So we know:

Newtons = Mass (In kG) * Meters / Time ( in seconds) ^ 2

Then, putting a pressure sensitive material behind the armor and doing the tests by gradually increasing the Meters / Time and measure how it effects your newtons and PSI on the other side of the armor. Do it enough times and average successful (fatal) results, should be quantitative, no?

Edit- Those resources are enlightening, but I think there's a lot more work to be done in this area. I thank you very much.

[Mr. Mask]

Haldir: How precise do you need the data to be, if I may ask?

[Haldir]

Right now I'm trying to find as much information as possible so I can see what sort of leg work is already done. I think eventually I'm going to have to run an experiment myself, so any insight is greatly appreciated.

[Mr. Mask]

Didn't The Knight and the Blast Furnace have some experiments using joules for measurement?

I recall some experiments using joules, but I can't remember what source it was from.

[fusilier]

The 17th century ECW replica pike I handled during the recent re-enactment day was definitely heavier than 4.5kg and both the re-enactor and the wikipedia article says 8-10kg.

It will depend upon the wood, but eight pounds is the value given for a Spanish pike (16-18 feet). 8-10kg is way too heavy. The pike's length will make it somewhat unwieldy and awkward; it will apply a lot of leverage (as it's rarely held from the center), which probably makes it *feel* heavier.

In ACW I actually prefer to carry a M1842 musket over the M1861 -- it's heavier by at least a pound, but I like the balance and "feel" of the older musket more, which makes it more comfortable to carry. If you aren't accustomed to these items and their weights, they usually feel heavier than they actually are. :-)

[fusilier]

During the days of the muzzle loader guns (when the main limiting factor in a fire fight was how long it took to reload) were multi-barrelled guns a thing? I know there were people running around with entire belts of disposable single-shot guns and it seems that having multiple barrels would be a simpler alternative that wouldn't all that much more difficult to make.

Doubled barreled shotguns.

Pepperboxes, and "cap and ball" revolvers which are also usually categorized as "muzzle loading".

Nock's volley gun (seven barrels, I think, usually fired one at a time?).

Brother Oni posted a nice picture of a "duck's foot" pistol. Which is a kind of bizarre volley gun.

There were several early forms of revolver/pepperbox. Most would have one lock, which would need to be primed between shots.

Finally, there was the old, but potentially very dangerous, superimposed loads -- one barrel, with multiple loads stacked in it. Each charge could be fired independently, either by having multiple locks, or a sliding lock. Or, it could be fired in "roman candle" style. Both pretty dangerous, if it accidentally fired out of order.

For the most part, carrying a bunch of single-shot pistols was the way to go until the advent of the percussion cap, and pepperboxes (then revolvers).

[fusilier]

Right now I'm trying to find as much information as possible so I can see what sort of leg work is already done. I think eventually I'm going to have to run an experiment myself, so any insight is greatly appreciated.

It's not actually force, it's "pressure" (a force applied to an area). So the amount of "force" a round, large caliber musket ball takes to penetrate some armor, would be different to the amount force an narrow arrow point takes (as the contact area would be different). At one point I tracked down an article about destructive testing on a pair of iron 17th century breast plates. They tested the armor against .50 caliber rounds, and had worked out various equations. There's a bunch of complications to this (a larger bullet had more mass, but struck a larger area, the bullets deform, etc.)

I can't find that article now, but such work has been done before, so I'm sure if you dig you will start to find some results.

[Silver Swift]

Multi-barrel muzzle loaders did exist, but they were expensive to make and often the additional triggering mechanisms were unreliable:

They essentially came in two variants: volley guns which fired all their barrels at once and pepperboxes which fire repeatedly much like a revolver.]

Thanks!

[Spiryt]

However the best I've seen for melee weapons are things along the lines of these videos: Link1; link2.

Some dude bashes butted 'mail' hanged on something take 731.

How possibly could this be this 'best' or even not horrible?


As far as actual scientific experiments on larger scale - then I believe that Alan Williams tests are indeed still the best out there - he tested some authentic mail and weapon, I believe.

[Brother Oni]

If you aren't accustomed to these items and their weights, they usually feel heavier than they actually are. :-)

Hmmm, I concede that point.

There's a bunch of complications to this (a larger bullet had more mass, but struck a larger area, the bullets deform, etc.)

Armour not constructed as a single piece would be another major complication - a number of sources report mail being pretty much impervious to cutting/slashing attacks.

Some dude bashes butted 'mail' hanged on something take 731.

How possibly could this be this 'best' or even not horrible?

It's an example of the tests that are typically done, rather than it being a good test.

Here's an example of what I would regard as a good test: English Longbow Testing.
As with most bow/crossbow tests however, the lethality is calculated in the same manner as firearm/body armour tests with joules/penetration/ballistic material deformation as the main measure of success or failure.

Edit: The Knight and the Blast Furnace indicates that a halberd (edged) or lance (stabbing) requires >200J impact energy (simulated) to defeat mail made with modern steel (15th century mail performed less well at 170J and 140J respectively). In comparison, a bodkin point (simulated) needed 120J and a 'bullet' needed 400J.

While it's just about possible for a very strong man with a two handed blow to achieve 200J with an axe or sword, you only need a good archer (or a crossbow) to achieve their respective energies.

I also can't see a reference to any other considerations like how much energy is transmitted to the underlying material - sure you may need 200J to penetrate a mail coif, but you probably need considerably less energy to cause his brains to start leaking out of his ears.

The 120J for a bodkin also seems a bit high, given that the previous longbow test linked calculated a 74.1J input and only the short bodkin (but both broadheads) failed to cause probable death by NIJ standards against high quality riveted mail.

[Galloglaich]

Blades are not at all effective against decently manufactured armor, which is why I did not include them in my question. Force is the only appropriate scientific metric for judging the effectiveness of weapons against armor. Ideally, we find a study where a machine used a piercing, cleaving and blunt weapon against a plate, scale, and chain armor X number of times at forces A, B, and C etc. etc. and averaged out the forces necessary to penetrate and/or deal lethal force.

I should not except the larger, two handed blades, which would probably fall under the purview of a "cleaving" weapon for my particular inquiry. Apologies.

Last edit, I swear- To clarify, I am not trying to gauge weapon effectiveness so much as I am trying to get an idea of armor effectiveness.

Dr Alan Williams did this quite scientifically in his book Knight and the Blast Furnace, which you can find on Google books.

g

[Haldir]

Thank you very much for the book lead. I will have a look at that today.

[Haldir]

I also can't see a reference to any other considerations like how much energy is transmitted to the underlying material - sure you may need 200J to penetrate a mail coif, but you probably need considerably less energy to cause his brains to start leaking out of his ears.

This is actually more pertinent to my inquiry. While the durability is certainly a factor, the nature of armor is to keep dangerous forces from reaching the other side. It doesn't seem like there are many studies that address this.

[Incanur]

The 17th century ECW replica pike I handled during the recent re-enactment day was definitely heavier than 4.5kg and both the re-enactor and the wikipedia article says 8-10kg.

As I said, there's nothing like consensus on the issue and it's further likely that pike weights varied. But don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.

Since I haven't read the techniques, I can't say whether it's possible or not (the design of the weapon I handled postdates both of them however). That said, I'm not sure there's not much you can do with a 16ft pike except poke the enemy and hold it steady to ward off cavalry - it's just too long to do much technically with it.

Sixteenth-century sources make it clear folks dueled with pikes. Indeed, George Silver considered the pike one of the most effective weapons for single combat. Antonio Manciolino recommended the lancia - basically a pike, though not necessarily 16-18ft - over all other weapons. Here is Silver's section on the pike. It involves using the pike in one hand. You can see a somewhat similar grip in Joachim Meyer's manual. You'd have to be awfully strong to effectively perform such techniques with a 20lb pike.

[Brother Oni]

You'd have to be awfully strong to effectively perform such techniques with a 20lb pike.

Agreed. I'm inclined to think it was my unfamiliarity with the weapon that gave me the impression of the pike being heavier than it actually is, although I'm surprised that weapon balance affects it to that degree - I'm certain it felt closer to 9kg in my hands than to 4kg.

Since you're more familiar with Silver than I am, would you mind answering a question?
I've found a copy of his Paradoxes of Defence and section 21 indicates that sword and dagger men have the advantage against morris pikes, but the morris pike has the advantage against the short staff and other 'perfect length' weapons.

However a later section (27), it says the short staff has the advantage against the longer weapon.

Am I mis-understanding the text, is Silver being inconsistent, or is it an actual paradox?

[Incanur]

I'm certain it felt closer to 9kg in my hands than to 4kg.

How thick was it? Published density figures for ash range from 0.6-0.71 g/cc. Even using the highest numbers, 18ft at 1.5in diameter weighs 9.7lbs. You'd need over 2in diameter to achieve 9kg (20lbs). The suspected pike shafts recovered from the Mary Rose are around 1 inch in diameter. 18ft at 1in diameter comes in at 6lbs!

Since you're more familiar with Silver than I am, would you mind answering a question?
I've found a copy of his Paradoxes of Defence and section 21 indicates that sword and dagger men have the advantage against morris pikes, but the morris pike has the advantage against the short staff and other 'perfect length' weapons.

However a later section (27), it says the short staff has the advantage against the longer weapon.

Am I mis-understanding the text, is Silver being inconsistent, or is it an actual paradox?

You're misunderstanding. Section 21 says that the pike has the advantage of all weapons except for staff/spears of perfect length. It also says that two men with swords and daggers or like like weapons beat the pike. The staff of perfect length, on the other hand, defeats two men with swords and daggers.

[Mr Beer]

That's not really what I think of when I think street brawling. Sure, professional killers, some - definitely not all - gang members, and the like act approximately as the author describes. (Such people in fact tend to live in nice houses. The Iceman would be an example. I wouldn't call him a street rat - I don't think that's a useful term at all.) But plenty of folks throw down without any lethal intent and with interest in displaying their skill and/or courage.

He's talking about the more problematic opponents you will encounter in dangerous situations and explaining exactly why it's a good idea to avoid violence when possible, basically because the kind of people who are willing to fight are the kind of people who are good at inflicting a great deal of damage and probably not because they want to have some kind of unarmed duel with you.

Of course there are other kinds of people who get into fights, most especially young men who have been drinking alcohol.

I don't know what kind of people you think "throw down without any lethal intent and with interest in displaying their skill and/or courage" but to me you are describing a reckless, dangerous idiot. That kind of behaviour ends up with people getting badly injured.

[Brother Oni]

How thick was it?

It was hexagonal of ~1 inch each side, making a 16ft haft weigh ~6.3lb by my calculations if it were made out of ash (the wood was stained a dark black, so I couldn't tell its original colour, plus I'm no woodworker).
For safety reasons, this pike had a rubber head, although it had riveted iron strips near the business end of the weapon for improved durability.

You're misunderstanding. Section 21 says that the pike has the advantage of all weapons except for staff/spears of perfect length.

Derp, missed the 'excepted' clause at the very end of the sentence. I'm too used to scientific texts.

[Incanur]

Of course there are other kinds of people who get into fights, most especially young men who have been drinking alcohol.

Exactly.

I don't know what kind of people you think "throw down without any lethal intent and with interest in displaying their skill and/or courage" but to me you are describing a reckless, dangerous idiot. That kind of behaviour ends up with people getting badly injured.

Uh, see your own words above. I'll venture that the vast majority of people who throw punches do so without wanting to kill anybody. While brawling for status and/or to settle disputes can indeed cause serious injuries and death, a fair amount of the time it doesn't. I know folks who tend to fight dozens of times a year - maybe more - and rarely if ever receive anything worse than bruises, bloody noses, and black eyes. These things hurt, of course, but they're not a huge health risk.

I completely agree with the advice to avoid trouble and have never brawled myself. But it strikes me as excessive to claim that fighting necessarily leads to an experienced killer shooting you in the back of the head.

[Mr Beer]

I know folks who tend to fight dozens of times a year - maybe more - and rarely if ever receive anything worse than bruises, bloody noses, and black eyes. These things hurt, of course, but they're not a huge health risk.

Holy crap, are you serious? Are these guys fighting in a controlled enviroment or getting drunk and brawling in the street? I'm going to go ahead and say that fighting in the streets on a weekly basis is a huge health risk even if a black eye isn't.

ExactlyBut it strikes me as excessive to claim that fighting necessarily leads to an experienced killer shooting you in the back of the head.

I'm pretty sure that claim was not made.

But if you make a habit of brawling with random strangers, sooner or later you are going to end up meeting the wrong person and there are people out there who will cheerfully kill you for threatening them with physical harm.

I suppose if you ensure you only fight drunk college students that would cut down on the danger significantly. I wouldn't recommend going out with a jovial 'it's only fists' attitude because lots of people don't feel that way about it. Bear in mind this guy is writing from the experience of rough neighbourhoods and brushing up against the criminal underclass.

From my own perspective, I wouldn't deliberately kill someone who attacked me with their fists but I can think of plenty of things I might do in the stress of the moment that could kill someone, for example shove them down a flight of concrete steps, slam their head against a brick wall, kick them when they are down etc. I'm not some crazy animal but people can get very aggressive when they are threatened and the grip of a massive adrenalin dump you don't always clearly think things through. If anything I would be more likely to do something desperate because I'm not an experienced figher.

[Incanur]

I'm going to go ahead and say that fighting in the streets on a weekly basis is a huge health risk even if a black eye isn't.

I'm not saying it's brilliant idea, but I know people who've been doing it for a long time and aren't dead. In one case, each fight has its own context but they keep on happening. I'd say it's kind of like smoking, heavy drinking, and other such unhealthful habits.

Again, I'm not at all the brawling type. I know from firsthand experience the merits of refusing escalation. I've been threatened with weapons up close multiple times. If I had attacked instead of retreating or submitting, I might have gotten injured or killed instead of getting off free.

I'm pretty sure that claim was not made.

The gist of the piece is that internet warriors can't handle the street because people on the street will ambush and kill you. That's fair enough, but exaggerated and variable.

Additionally, and with particular relevance to historical (and contemporary) warfare, some folks just plain love fighting regardless of the risk. Many if not most of them die young, but a few are so skilled, lucky, and/or tough that they survive to a ripe old age.

But if you make a habit of brawling with random strangers, sooner or later you are going to end up meeting the wrong person and there are people out there who will cheerfully kill you for threatening them with physical harm.

Sure. Note I'm not talking about completely random aggression, but in any case the danger always remains present.

[warty goblin]

I'm not saying it's brilliant idea, but I know people who've been doing it for a long time and aren't dead. In one case, each fight has its own context but they keep on happening. I'd say it's kind of like smoking, heavy drinking, and other such unhealthful habits.

Yeah. I know a couple of guys who get into fights with some regularity, usually in the presense of alcohol. They've never been all that worse for the wear for it. Violence definitely can, and very often is, kept to a sub-lethal level; though obviously there's a not insubstantial risk that it can escalate. However it by no means has to, particularly if the social context makes that escalation unfavorable for both parties.