Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XII

[AttilaTheGeek]

Weapon total length isn't everything; what's more important is hilt/grip length and balancing. Rapiers are hilt/guard-heavy, for instance, with short hilts, so they're one-handed. A sword of the same length and weight as a rapier, but with the point of balance higher, may require two hands to use.

So, how is your lightsaber balanced? (The real way to tell how many hands it's for is to use it.)

I've decided to get the non-removable blade because it's about $30 cheaper and I already have the darth maul one, so I will be able to combine them into one blade (or dual-wield them as two). The center of mass is in the back of the blade, about two inches from the hilt. It feels comfortable to use with either one or two hands, even without exotic weapon proficiency: bastard sword (because that's really what it is, apparently).

[Thiel]

I've never understood why light sabers weren't more widespread in Star Wars. Even if their utility as a weapon might be questionable, they would make an awesome engineering/breaching tool.

[Rhynn]

The center of mass is in the back of the blade, about two inches from the hilt. It feels comfortable to use with either one or two hands, even without exotic weapon proficiency: bastard sword (because that's really what it is, apparently).

That sounds like a one-handed sword, and if there's room on the hilt for two hands, that makes it hand-and-a-half, basically. So, yeah, bastard sword. (Appropriate enough, because in the original movies, they were used in a style that looked to be based on kendo, and the katana is essentially a single-edge hand-and-a-half.)

[Galloglaich]

Marozzo does depict the use of quite large shields, big rotella, which you can see in some of the illustrations, like this



...and bigger ones too.


A heater is a specific type of cavalry shield probably not in use that much by infantry... if you are talking about a Norman style heater, the really long one, that is basically non-existent by the time of Marozzo.

The only real problem I see with a lower roverso cut is really more the shape of such a shield rather than the size.

G

[Brother Oni]

I've never understood why light sabers weren't more widespread in Star Wars. Even if their utility as a weapon might be questionable, they would make an awesome engineering/breaching tool.

Their creation and maintenance requires a Force capable (not just sensitive) user, which probably makes them not very cost effective for non-Jedi/Sith users to use.

Since they're also very bespoke (Jedi and Sith create them as part of their apprenticeship), supply is very thin on the ground as they can't be mass produced easily.

[Thiel]

Why? The components are all pretty basic and a lot of them use synthetic crystals. The great thing about synthetic crystals is that they have the same properties which allows for mass production.
Heck, the ligthsaber entry on the star wars wiki even mentions mass produced lightsabers.

[Brother Oni]

Why? The components are all pretty basic and a lot of them use synthetic crystals. The great thing about synthetic crystals is that they have the same properties which allows for mass production.
Heck, the ligthsaber entry on the star wars wiki even mentions mass produced lightsabers.

Hmm, I think we're both right. According to Wookiepedia, they were 'mass produced' in the sense that materials and (especially) crystals could be easily fabricated to uniform specifications, but the lightsabres still had to be assembled by hand (so not so bespoke that they're in high demand, but neither so numerous that there's a significant over-supply).

In which case, I suspect it's simple cost efficiency - the fusion cutter mentioned in the article's opening quote is probably easier and cheaper to obtain and use, with the added advantage of not drawing unwanted attention depending on the time period: Jedi looking into the possible theft of one of their signature weapons, Imperial forces looking to purge Force users, Sith who would just straight up murder you, vigilantes who want to murder any/all Force users, etc.

[warty goblin]

OK, so actual real world weapon question. My vague poking at the bronze age continues apace. One thing that seems to occur both in the weapons of the Aegean as well as those of central Europe and the British Isles are leaf-shaped blades. Celtic Europe in particular seems to have produced a lot of blades that have a very pronounced leaf shape, well beyond the slight necking seen later in some patterns of Roman gladius. This seems to be less prevalent in Mycenean/Aegean bronze weapons, and is confined mostly to the Type F and some versions of the ubiquitous Naue II*.

So my question to those with more hands-on experience with swords than myself, which is probably most people on this thread: does anybody have any idea how a leaf-bladed sort of weapon would handle?

Rather more generally, most bronze age warriors don't seem to have enjoyed much in the way of armor, although shields seem to have been very common. The armor that did exist however, particularly in Mycenaean Greece (where they developed nearly full body lamelar harness as early as 1500 BC) and the near East seems to be quite sophisticated. How do you figure this would effect the shape of battle, if relatively few people on the field would have vastly better protection than everybody else?


*A sword pattern that seems to have been made through much of Europe and Egypt for the better part of seven hundred years, in both bronze and iron. Apparently it did something right. The evidence suggests that it was developed by - inevitably - the Celts

[Storm Bringer]

How do you figure this would effect the shape of battle, if relatively few people on the field would have vastly better protection than everybody else?

i think it would help reinforce the "heroic Mythos" element of the era, with a few, well armed and well trained men taking on and beating a much larger number of poorly armed, ill trained foes.

Rather more generally, most bronze age warriors don't seem to have enjoyed much in the way of armor, although shields seem to have been very common. The armor that did exist however, particularly in Mycenaean Greece (where they developed nearly full body lamelar harness as early as 1500 BC) and the near East seems to be quite sophisticated.

I think this is due in part to the extreme costs of good armour, and the relative availability of metals.

A good suit of armour is expensive. I have seen the costs for a full body suit of mail in the crusades era being described as about the same cost, relatively, as buying a house is today.

Now, back in the bronze age, I would imagine that the costs were even higher, as bronze would be much more expensive and rare (compared to iron in the crusades era). the two major elements of bronzes, copper and Tin, almost never occur together or even near each other, with most of the ancient greek and Egyptian tin coming all the way form Cornwall in England .

thus, only the really rich could afford a full suit of bronze armour, while most just had a helmet, shield and spear.

[warty goblin]

i think it would help reinforce the "heroic Mythos" element of the era, with a few, well armed and well trained men taking on and beating a much larger number of poorly armed, ill trained foes.

This would be my instinct as well, particularly once you factor in the wealthy elite who could afford armor also being more likely to have received a lifetime of good nutrition. It's worth noting that all the heroes in the Iliad are described as being really big men.

Plus, in an era that predates even city-states, the rank and file is basically going to be fighting for plunder, personal glory and out of personal loyalty to their particular chieftain/king/whatever. Leading from the front and the duel between champions makes sense in this context; it validates the prowess of the chieftain, and minimizes the losses to the victor's manpower.

A good suit of armour is expensive. I have seen the costs for a full body suit of mail in the crusades era being described as about the same cost, relatively, as buying a house is today.

Some sources I've seen suggest maybe 50lbs of iron for an entire Icelandic farm during the Viking age.

Now, back in the bronze age, I would imagine that the costs were even higher, as bronze would be much more expensive and rare (compared to iron in the crusades era). the two major elements of bronzes, copper and Tin, almost never occur together or even near each other, with most of the ancient greek and Egyptian tin coming all the way form Cornwall in England .

thus, only the really rich could afford a full suit of bronze armour, while most just had a helmet, shield and spear.

And we think an economy dependent on international trade is a recent development.

I don't think there's that great of a number of finds of metallic helmets from the bronze age. This could be because they are thin, and so are less well preserved than larger pieces such as swords. It's also possible that helmets, like shields, were often made from organic materials and have long since rotted away. The boar-tusk helmet certainly seems to have been popular in Mycenaean Greece.

Either that, or most soldiers didn't even have helmets.

Also, bronze age helmets are weird, with an odd tendency towards horns.

[GraaEminense]

I was of the distinct impression that most bronze age armours, like the famous Mycenaean harness below, were charioteers' armours. Partly because the charioteers were a prestigious elite (this was the heyday of the war chariot after all) and partially because bronze harness is heavy.
With those enemies you'd expect to use swords against being unarmoured, I'd expect the leaf shape to give good cutting blows and deadly thrusts but I have never handled a leaf-shape sword.

I'd appreciate it if anyone could point me to a source for sophisticated pre-1200 BC infantry armour, because I have none in my (limited, admittedly) library.

[warty goblin]

I was of the distinct impression that most bronze age armours, like the famous Mycenaean harness below, were charioteers' armours. Partly because the charioteers were a prestigious elite (this was the heyday of the war chariot after all) and partially because bronze harness is heavy.

This page suggests that this particular harness was plenty mobile enough for dismounted combat, based on reconstructions. It also points out that the design of the shoulder protection would make use of javelin or bow quite difficult, which are not attributes favorable for chariot warfare. And the total weight is apparently around 40 - 50 lbs, which is heavy but not unreasonably so for full torso and thigh protection.

With those enemies you'd expect to use swords against being unarmoured, I'd expect the leaf shape to give good cutting blows and deadly thrusts but I have never handled a leaf-shape sword.

This would be my guess as well, that the leaf shaped blade essentially turns the sword into a double edged sort of falcata almost, with the curvature near the tip allowing for very powerful cuts.

[Spiryt]

This would be my guess as well, that the leaf shaped blade essentially turns the sword into a double edged sort of falcata almost, with the curvature near the tip allowing for very powerful cuts.

I know about nothing about construction of bronze age blades, but even fairly bold curvature on lead shape doesn't really have to make cut more powerful - if only leaf shaped part is kept proportionally thin, and there's a bit more mass closer to the hilt, sword will be balanced similarly to 'no leaf' one.

Broader 'cutting' part will probably improve cutting performance, and more metal in that region would produce bolder swings.

While falcatas seem to actually be significantly forward balanced, though it's still impossible to tell without actually measuring them.

[warty goblin]

I know about nothing about construction of bronze age blades, but even fairly bold curvature on lead shape doesn't really have to make cut more powerful - if only leaf shaped part is kept proportionally thin, and there's a bit more mass closer to the hilt, sword will be balanced similarly to 'no leaf' one.

The center of mass could indeed be the same - although the moment of inertia about the CoM will differ. How exactly moments of inertia influence performance in the cut is something I wish was studied more closely; I suspect it could well explain at least some of why swords with equal weights and centers of mass can perform quite differently when cutting.

Given just how radically leaf-shaped a lot of British Isles and mainland Europe swords were though, I rather doubt the center of mass was in the same location as a similarly sized weapon with a 'conventionally' shaped blade. Particularly since the pommels and hilt components of these weapons apparently are quite light, and often entirely made from organic materials. Even when the pommel is bronze, I believe it's usually hollow.

Broader 'cutting' part will probably improve cutting performance, and more metal in that region would produce bolder swings.

This is very true, but it's also worth noting that a leaf shape induces curvature in the edge. How much of an effect this has, I really do not know.

While falcatas seem to actually be significantly forward balanced, though it's still impossible to tell without actually measuring them.

Unfortunately, this sort of information seems almost entirely impossible to find. For whatever reasons, there just doesn't seem to the same scale of enthusiasm and hands-on research leveled at the pre-medieval period.

[Spiryt]

The center of mass could indeed be the same - although the moment of inertia about the CoM will differ. How exactly moments of inertia influence performance in the cut is something I wish was studied more closely; I suspect it could well explain at least some of why swords with equal weights and centers of mass can perform quite differently when cutting.

The exact mass distrubution is very important as well, AFAIU, center of mass is after all only one most apparent feature.

That obviously leaving aside most obvious things like cross section/general geometry and metallurgy.

This is very true, but it's also worth noting that a leaf shape induces curvature in the edge. How much of an effect this has, I really do not know.

I can be wrong, but I really doubt that curvature in leaf shaped blades really has any significant effect at all, at least effect understood as draw cut etc. effects of curved blade.

Curvature is minimal and ends very quickly, cannot be compared to any curved sabre or messer, where curvature spans trough at least few good inches, and can, therefore, change the dynamics of impact.

Leaf shaped blade will hit like straight one, pretty much, any change in angle of cutting will be eligible compared even to that, for example.

[Galloglaich]

The cost of armor varied enormously. Iron was indeed rare in Iceland, so was wood and many other things - Iceland was a poor island.

Armor was relatively rare in the early Viking age (i.e. 8th Century) but had become ubiquitous by the end of it (11th Century) sufficient that thousands of warriors were clad in mail and the peasant levies required mail armor both in the Viking as well as Frankish records.

By the late medieval period armor had become relatively cheap, closer equivalent in cost to a computer than to a house (though mail specifically, due perhaps to the labor intensive nature of it's creation, remained fairly expensive).

The most important factor in the cost of iron was the cost of materials. In the Bronze Age, Bronze and other copper alloys (brass and copper-arsenic alloys were common in military kit as well) were the product of powerful city-states and rich kingdoms - communities with enough reach to have trading networks that could bring in the necessary ingredients to make Bronze, and had the knowhow to smelt it. The key ingredient for actual bronze was tin, and unlike copper tin, or tin-ore (casseritite) was pretty rare. Most of the sources in Anatolia and the Middle East (where the Bronze Age started) were used up by the Middle Bronze Age and they had to go as far as Western France and England to find it.

So all the other people who were outside of this rather elite system had very little Bronze. This changed with the advent of iron which may have led to the famous Bronze Age Collapse.

I think within those wealthier more organized communites, they were able to arm and armor their soldiers and fighting men; we see armor in period art and quite a bit of armor has survived, including a large number of helmets. Bronze (and Brass etc.) helmets did continue in use well into the Iron Age though so quite a few surviving Bronze helmets are not from that far back, but we have quite a few that are.


With regard to leaf blade swords, I've seen a few last year at the Higgins, and I was surprised how small and thin they were. They looked more robust in the photos I'd seen but you don't usually have context in the photo's. In person they seemed so light that I doubt balance would be much of an issue. The leaf shape seems to have been much rarer with iron swords, why, I really don't know.

G

[Straybow]

I'm confident a fist would penetrate a human if it imparted sufficient momentum to drive that person through a brick wall. There's a huge difference between forcibly knocking someone back and accelerating them to the point where they smash through rigid architecture.

Basically you can't have both. If the energy is concentrated on a small enough area to punch through then the energy doesn't get transferred to hurl the body with cinematic flair.

Second, you can't really have either. I don't think any amount of strength could accelerate (over just a couple feet) the fist and arm to a velocity high enough to punch through. If the punch launches the body it wouldn't go through a wall, it would just splat against it.

If we're looking at it in terms of real world physics.

[Straybow]

I've been wondering: How much would full plate armour protect against the kinds of magical attacks we see in fantasy (particularly RPG systems)?
Other armour systems may also be interesting to consider.

In DnD, it specifically says that a fireball has no concussive blast. That means the flames are not jets of expanding superheated gasses, but magical manifestations that resemble flames and impart heat damage to the things touched. Also, if an unarmored person isn't burnt to a crisp there isn't enough energy to damage metal. We can say the magic tendrils seek out the gaps and burn the flesh beneath.

Likewise for other magical energy effects. A lightning bolt doesn't veer off to the nearest grounding, it goes to a specific target. Acid wouldn't react quickly with metal. Etc.

Well, I'm sure this is not the thread for criticizing the DnD armor class system, but changing to some kind of damage reduction model for armor would take care of most of those considerations abstractly.

[Mr Beer]

Basically you can't have both. If the energy is concentrated on a small enough area to punch through then the energy doesn't get transferred to hurl the body with cinematic flair.

This is my reasoning, at least at the strength levels I am imagining. I don't know what happens if you scale up to much higher superhuman strength levels, but I suspect you would get a normal human body simply breaking apart before you got punch through plus cinematic knockback.

Second, you can't really have either. I don't think any amount of strength could accelerate (over just a couple feet) the fist and arm to a velocity high enough to punch through. If the punch launches the body it wouldn't go through a wall, it would just splat against it.

If we're looking at it in terms of real world physics.

Well, to model superhuman strength, there needs to be ancillary (perhaps unformalised) superpowers and maybe one of them is a sort of limited "super speed for strikes" otherwise yeah, the super-fist isn't going to go fast enough.

[Mr. Mask]

Have something interesting I was shown, a while back. Anyone want to discuss this guy demonstrating a firing speed, with a light bow, which is literally faster than Legolas from the Lord of the Rings film?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g

That's pretty impressive. Someone reckoned it's still possible to get some amazng speeds, even with a heavier bow and arrows.

[Brother Oni]

Have something interesting I was shown, a while back. Anyone want to discuss this guy demonstrating a firing speed, with a light bow, which is literally faster than Legolas from the Lord of the Rings film?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g

That's pretty impressive. Someone reckoned it's still possible to get some amazng speeds, even with a heavier bow and arrows.

He's short drawing with a thumb release, thus with holding the arrow in the hand, he's able to get a high rate of fire.

Yes, it looks nice and fast, but I wouldn't want to put bets on the lethality. There's historical texts which detail the effectiveness of such archery - someone here (Galloglaich, I think) listed an account of a Frankish knight in the Crusades who looked like a porcupine with the number of arrows stuck in his armour (inner gambeson, mail, outer gambeson), apparently without harm.

As a comparison of another quick firing weapon, the repeating crossbow, could loose 10 bolts in 15 seconds. That only had an effective range of 60m and the bolts were often coated in poison to achieve lethality.

[Mr. Mask]

Lethality with a bow like that seems quite unlikely, I agree. I wonder if it may be possible to achieve low levels of lethality - much as you point out with the repeating crossbow - through the use of a heavier bow? I doubt there is likely to be much effect against armour, no matter how you slice it--but an improved rate of fire which sacrifices accuracy, power, and range for speed sounds like it could sometimes be very useful.

[AgentPaper]

Could simply be the historical equivalent of suppressing fire. Not really meant to kill someone so much as it's meant to make them duck for cover and prevent them from doing anything.

Loosing a bunch of non-lethal arrows into an army would also be quite useful. Again, might not kill anyone outright, but causing minor wounds and bleeding would do well to soften them up for a later, more serious attack, and would also drain their supplies as they tended to the many wounded.

[warty goblin]

Lethality with a bow like that seems quite unlikely, I agree. I wonder if it may be possible to achieve low levels of lethality - much as you point out with the repeating crossbow - through the use of a heavier bow? I doubt there is likely to be much effect against armour, no matter how you slice it--but an improved rate of fire which sacrifices accuracy, power, and range for speed sounds like it could sometimes be very useful.

I don't think you could get level of speed with a much heavier bow, simply due to the extra effort required to draw the thing.

And I can't really think of that many applications for shooting a lot of ineffective arrows very quickly. If they can't hurt a guy in armor, the fact you can bounce a lot of them off him doesn't really hinder his running up and stabbing you in the face.

[Rhynn]

Loosing a bunch of non-lethal arrows into an army would also be quite useful. Again, might not kill anyone outright, but causing minor wounds and bleeding would do well to soften them up for a later, more serious attack, and would also drain their supplies as they tended to the many wounded.

The tactical purpose of arrow volleys was probably mostly to soften up the enemy, anyway - first it rains arrows, then the enemy charges into you, and then a bunch of knights come at your flank or a spot in your front where the line is already wavering. Some of the guys finally break and turn tail, and then your entire battle line gets rolled up.

Of course, it really helps if those arrows are actually killing people, or at least hurting them bad enough to incapacitate them.

[AgentPaper]

And I can't really think of that many applications for shooting a lot of ineffective arrows very quickly. If they can't hurt a guy in armor, the fact you can bounce a lot of them off him doesn't really hinder his running up and stabbing you in the face.

Not everyone can wear armor, and certainly not full plate armor.

[Brother Oni]

I don't think you could get level of speed with a much heavier bow, simply due to the extra effort required to draw the thing.

Actually you can with short drawing as you're not using the full power of the bow. More powerful bows tend to be longer, so the distance their maximum pull is at (eg 90lb at 28"), tends to increase, thus you're not pulling as much as the poundage increase would indicate.

You would get tired very very quickly though.

Not everyone can wear armor, and certainly not full plate armor.

But equally, if your arrows can't incapacitate an un-armoured man, what's the point of loosing in the first place?

Additionally, if it takes two or more of your arrows to do the job of one from a fully drawn bow, you're going to run out of arrows very quickly.

[Spiryt]

He's short drawing with a thumb release, thus with holding the arrow in the hand, he's able to get a high rate of fire.

Yes, it looks nice and fast, but I wouldn't want to put bets on the lethality. There's historical texts which detail the effectiveness of such archery - someone here (Galloglaich, I think) listed an account of a Frankish knight in the Crusades who looked like a porcupine with the number of arrows stuck in his armour (inner gambeson, mail, outer gambeson), apparently without harm.

I'm pretty sure there was absolutely nothing about short drawing, holding arrows in hands or 'such archery' in this Crusade account though.

[warty goblin]

Not everyone can wear armor, and certainly not full plate armor.

But they can probably carry a shield. Even if the arrows should prove fatal eventually, it's small comfort to the archer if that occurs any time after they get their head split open. I suspect in the realm of discomforting the foe, you're going to need a reasonably powerful bow to do much good. Maybe not a 150lbs monster, but something relatively lethal.

[Mr. Mask]

Largely, utility I can imagine from using this quick-draw system, would involve attacking unarmed people who, preferably, are not expecting your attack.