-
Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
New thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thiel
This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.
As far as I can tell, the previous threads don't exist any more, except Version V and Version VI. This is Version IX. Version X
A few rules for this thread:
This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.
Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)
No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.
With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!
Thread V
Thread VI
Thread VII
Thread VIII
Thread IX
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
So, to kick us off I have a few questions. Do we know much about how long swords stayed with a person? Would a professional soldier carry a sword his entire carreer if it didn't break before he died? If a whetstone is applied to a sword that is often in use, how much of the sword would shave off after several years or decades?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
The quality of the material would certainly made an impact. If it holds the edge better, you need less sharpening. Also I assume that you get smaller nicks when hitting something hard, which would need less grinding to get them out. This should increase the life time quite substentially.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
About how early was artillery that could arc a shot instead of using direct fire invented? How early did it become the standard of the battlefield?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MacAilbert
About how early was artillery that could arc a shot instead of using direct fire invented? How early did it become the standard of the battlefield?
All projectile motion is arced. Every damn bit of it. With enough training, crews can do indirect fire with a machine gun.
Indirect fire was well known before artillery. Archers and siege engineers used it back as far as we have records. So I'm sure early artillerymen were able to do it.
As far as indirect fire becoming "standard," that's late. Like WWI late, where most artillery is located well behind the lines and fires at a co-ordinate rather than by the crew aiming at a point target. Through the 19th century most battlefield guns, or field artillery were fired directly at enemy formations, although siege mortars existed very very early on.
The big limiter on effective indirect fire is not the gun, it's communication between the artillery crew and the artillery spotter.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Id even say that indirect fire was around long before directed fire. To aim a weapon by looking down the barrel and pointing it at the target you need projectiles at very high velocities. Catapults and trebuchets would fire in a very distinctive arc and as said, even with a bow or thrown spear, you have to fire or throw in an arc unless you are at point blank range tothe target.
If you can see the target you are aiming at or not, mostly depends on high its cover is. But to point the weapon directly at the target, you would have to be either very close or fire at very high velocity.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Yora
Id even say that indirect fire was around long before directed fire. To aim a weapon by looking down the barrel and pointing it at the target you need projectiles at very high velocities. Catapults and trebuchets would fire in a very distinctive arc and as said, even with a bow or thrown spear, you have to fire or throw in an arc unless you are at point blank range tothe target.
If you can see the target you are aiming at or not, mostly depends on high its cover is. But to point the weapon directly at the target, you would have to be either very close or fire at very high velocity.
Direct trajectory (the term "fire" didn't come into parlance until the musket was a dominant armament) just means the arc is not very high compared with the distance to the target, and the angle of incidence at the target is more horizontal than vertical. The release mechanism on a trebuchet typically limits launch trajectory to about 30°, which is a fairly flat trajectory.
While most artillery fire today is directed at targets not visible to the gunners, a gun firing at a target 10 miles away might only arc 2-3 miles high and hit the target at a comparatively shallow angle of incidence. Many artillery guns cannot be elevated much more than 40°, which is near the angle of maximum range. Mortars arc higher than the distance to target and typically cannot be depressed lower than about 40°. A howitzer will fire through the full range of direct and indirect fire and elevation angles.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I vote the thread title should include, "But Deadliest Warriors Said!"
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galloglaic
Actually that isn't true. It's amazing to me the myths that persist about the Middle Ages. They were mass producing all kinds of weapons and armor by the 14th Century. The Arsenal at Venice was producing thousands of guns per year by the 15th C with basically all the technology of a modern factory, interchangable parts, an assembly-line, automation etc. Automated production (based on hydro power) was widespread throughout Europe by that time.
Point taken. My previous statement also carried a strong North-Western European bias where I would expect the situation to be different than in the Mediterranean trade cities, though I might well be wrong there as well.
On that note: I was under the impression that one of the limitations of early gunpowder weapons was the availability of gunpowder -the ability to make it in quantity, to store it and to transport it, and the availability of salpeter.
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether or not I am embarrasingly mistaken?
-
Well, one can bet that misfires due to moisture would've been common, and exploding weapons due to material flaws less rare than desired. Now, how expensive the guns were, and the powder... that would be another factor against widespread early use.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GraaEminense
Point taken. My previous statement also carried a strong North-Western European bias where I would expect the situation to be different than in the Mediterranean trade cities, though I might well be wrong there as well.
On that note: I was under the impression that one of the limitations of early gunpowder weapons was the availability of gunpowder -the ability to make it in quantity, to store it and to transport it, and the availability of salpeter.
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether or not I am embarrasingly mistaken?
Gunpowder was rather expensive -- the price falling during the second half of the 1400s (I think, it was discussed in detail on an earlier incarnation of this topic). Early powders used calcium nitrate which is hydrophillic (?). Dry compounded gunpowder seperates when transported so mixing in the field was common.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
A quick wikipedia search on mortars delivers this
Quote:
Mortars have existed for hundreds of years, first seeing use in siege warfare. Many historians claim that the first mortars were used at the 1453 siege of Constantinople. A European account of the Siege of Belgrade (1456) by Giovanni da Tagliacozzo credits the Ottoman Turks for using seven mortars that fired "stone shots one Italian mile high".[3] The speed of these was apparently slow enough that casualties could be avoided by posting observers that gave warning of their trajectories.[4]
Found here.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GraaEminense
Point taken. My previous statement also carried a strong North-Western European bias where I would expect the situation to be different than in the Mediterranean trade cities, though I might well be wrong there as well.
France and England are a little behind the rest of Europe technologically through most of the Medieval period, though there are some exceptions. The most important art / technology / production centers in order of importance are the cities of Northern Italy (Florence, Milan, Venice, Genoa, Brescia, Padua, and so on), the cities of Flanders and the Low Countries (Ghent, Bruges, Ypres, Liege, The Hague, Amsterdam and so on in what is today Belgium and Holland), the North-German Hanse cities (esp. Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck), the central German Rhine and Swabian cities (Cologne, Strassbourg, and Augsburg), the Catalan cities (Barcelona and Valencia), and the Baltic north/central European cities of Prussia, Poland, Northern Hungary and Bohemia (Danzig, Krakow and Prague being most important).
So a lot of important industries were dominated by a few of these towns. For example, almost all the top quality armor used in Medieval Europe from the 14th Century onward (the era of plate armor) was made in three cities: Milan, Brescia, and Augsburg in Swabia (Germany - then part of the Holy Roman Empire). This continued from the 14th C through the early 16th.
Some of the English towns were part of the Hanseatic league, York and London were pretty sophisticated in certain ways... and they had Oxford and Cambridge Universities... Paris was also a hugely important University. Generally speaking though France and England were much more rural and Feudal, with strong Monarchies, and as a result they lacked the economic and technological dynamism of the Italian and Central European city-states.
Quote:
On that note: I was under the impression that one of the limitations of early gunpowder weapons was the availability of gunpowder -the ability to make it in quantity, to store it and to transport it, and the availability of salpeter.
Can anyone enlighten me as to whether or not I am embarrasingly mistaken?
No reason to be embarassed to ask questions, and sorry for my snarky tone earlier. I get grumpy about some persistent cliches but shouldn't be a jerk about it! I apologize.
The gunpowder question is quite valid. So gunpowder appeared in Europe in the mid-13th Century, first published in cypher form by the English Monk Roger Bacon. Early gunpowder was a mysterious alchemical substance equally intended for use as a flame-weapon as a propellant of bullets or arrows. It gradually got better and more useful, with numerous innovations. The (arguably) most important one took place around the mid-15th Century when they invented corned powder.
Until that point, the powder would tend to seperate out as you moved around, and could change it's composition over time. Corned powder was made of consistent kernels which retained their composition and size, different sizes being ideal for different weapons. This allowed them to make all their powder long before battle (instead of making it with mortar and pestle on the battlefield!) and quickly led to the use of cartridges, in the form of little bags of pre-measured powder (exactly the amount for one shot), primer, and a bullet.
From that point it's basically pretty good until you get to smokeless powder Centuries later. This is why most historians call the period from 1500 AD the 'Early Modern Era' because technologically, in war, they had almost all the same stuff they had centuries later. In fact in some cases they had reached the high-water mark in the 15th or early 16th Century on some stuff they wouldn't do as well for a long time to come. Like armor, or early field-guns such as those used by the Czechs, which arguably were not really improved upon until Gustavus Adolphus in the 17th Century.
G
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
That's pretty much as I expected -though I did not know corned powder was around as early as 1450. Supply must have increased with demand, but was there actually problems getting enough of the stuff?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
No reason to be embarassed to ask questions, and sorry for my snarky tone earlier. I get grumpy about some persistent cliches but shouldn't be a jerk about it! I apologize.
No offence taken. I'll admit to a slightly hurt pride, but that's what you get when you make statements without getting your facts straight.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
France and England are a little behind the rest of Europe technologically through most of the Medieval period, though there are some exceptions. The most important art / technology / production centers in order of importance are the cities of Northern Italy (Florence, Milan, Venice, Genoa, Brescia, Padua, and so on), the cities of Flanders and the Low Countries (Ghent, Bruges, Ypres, Liege, The Hague, Amsterdam and so on in what is today Belgium and Holland), the North-German Hanse cities (esp. Hamburg, Bremen, and Lubeck), the central German Rhine and Swabian cities (Cologne, Strassbourg, and Augsburg), the Catalan cities (Barcelona and Valencia), and the Baltic north/central European cities of Prussia, Poland, Northern Hungary and Bohemia (Danzig, Krakow and Prague being most important).
I am surprised that you left Constantinople off that list. I had thought in the Early Medieval period the Byzantines were one of the most important centers of art/technology in Europe. Of course, after the 4th crusade they had problems.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Ahh, indirect fire. My favorite topic. :smallbiggrin:
Ok, what has already been stated is fairly accurate. All fire is indirect in the sense that it arcs at least a little bit. There's no way around that unless you're using a laser weapon. Missiles or guided projectiles that glide might technically be an exception as well, but they have to generate lift somehow or they'll arc like anything else.
Indirect fire really means any time the weapon being employed is being aimed by someone other than the operator; an observer of some sort. Indirect fire, in that sense, came about one it was possible to send target information from an observer to a gun quickly enough to make shooting like this practical. Essentially, when the first field telephones appeared.
Indirect fire requires indirect lay. Basically, what this means is that you establish the gun's position, direction of aim (azimuth) and altitude relative to some known point on earth. The target is then located relative to that same known point. That requires some sort of accurate mapping system including a projection, sphereoid and all kinds of other highly technical details. You establish the known point you're going to fire off of ideally by having it surveyed in. The more accurately the gun is laid and the point is known, the more accurate your fire will be. With very modern systems like Paladin, GPS and inertial navigation can be used as well, but you still want to start from a surveyed point.
Indirect fire is not simply shooting in an arc to bring a projectile down on top of an enemy or because you have to shoot in an arc to get your projectile there. That's direct fire, just a more difficult, complicated version of it. When discussing, say, WWII naval battles, we never say that 2 battleships engaged each other with indirect fire. The 2 ships each directly located, aimed, and fired at their enemy once the engagement actually commenced, using either visual means or radar. Their fire was not generally directed at the enemy ship by an outside observer. On the other hand, an observer might very well direct ships firing at shore targets, making it indirect even though the ballistic performance of the projectile was similar in both situations.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Yet even when the observer says "shot 200 meter behind that ridge", it's still the gunners at the ship who aim the weapons at a spot they can not see.
Which is the same thing with a mortar.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Bow question:
I've learned that the flexibility of the arms of a bow are where most of the kinetic energy is supposed to come from, but what about the elasticity of the string?
Is it better to use a string that would stretch to give a little extra power, or is it preferable to use a string that will not stretch to lower the variability of a shot?
Also, in plain fantasy silliness, could a giant use a bow that was strung by a chain? Do chains have the qualities of a good bowstring? I imagine not...
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
It is quite routine for a bowstring to break due to wear and tear from normal use. (my old archery group of about 15 archers saw one string break every 4-6 meets). An archer would have carried around spare strings.
I would imagine that a non-elastic string would be better. An elastic string would stretch over time, causing the archer to misjudge the amount of draw effort put into each shot.
A chain could be used as a "string" for a sufficiently large arrow -- say, one that had a shaft about a foot wide (assuming links about an inch wide). Giant bows would be more likely to be strung with thin rope.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Bow question:
I've learned that the flexibility of the arms of a bow are where most of the kinetic energy is supposed to come from, but what about the elasticity of the string?
Is it better to use a string that would stretch to give a little extra power, or is it preferable to use a string that will not stretch to lower the variability of a shot?
Also, in plain fantasy silliness, could a giant use a bow that was strung by a chain? Do chains have the qualities of a good bowstring? I imagine not...
Stretching string will not give any power at all, in fact it will rob bow out of energy, as some energy is required for stretching the string, obviously.
Lack of stretchability is one of most desired qualities of good string, of course it's often hard to balance with resilience - if string won't snap, it usually must stretch a tiny little bit at least.
As far as chain goes, I can't imagine how should it work.
Aside from problems with achieving any sort of good tension with chain, after release every link would obviously move a bit in random direction, making it all pointless.
Adding the fact that metal chain would be obviously terribly heavy for string... Bad idea in general.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Bow question:
I've learned that the flexibility of the arms of a bow are where most of the kinetic energy is supposed to come from, but what about the elasticity of the string?
Is it better to use a string that would stretch to give a little extra power, or is it preferable to use a string that will not stretch to lower the variability of a shot?
Also, in plain fantasy silliness, could a giant use a bow that was strung by a chain? Do chains have the qualities of a good bowstring? I imagine not...
No a more ragid string is necessary for even distribution which effects aim. Also a elastic string will actually weaken the bow since in the default state the arms are still pulling the string taut. over time the string will grow longer and require more pulling distance in order to gain the same amount of energy as using a more rigid string.
while a chain could work the problem is again distribution of energy between the links. the bow would shoot wildly. depnding on the size of links it could also potentially be a problem with notching as well since ther are will be variable widths of the chain depedning on where you place your arrow. For practicality a chain used a on ballista would probably be better to stabalize trajectory.
you can use metal wire as a bowstring which is better but the problem then become flaying your skin off the bow holding arm
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Metal wire is bad idea, as it's obviously again - heavy, stiff, and under rapid and repeating stresses, metal fatigues way faster than linen, silk, hemp or any other appropriate non synthetic material.
And effects of metal wire string failing can be pretty nasty indeed.
And if it's shaped/massive enough to hold inact, it will quite obviously bite into bow arms instead.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
When you release a bow, a significant portion of the stored energy goes to rapidly moving the bow arms forward. They move a shorter distance than the arrow (the ends move about half as far, and the grip essentially does not move), but they weigh a good deal more. Adding additional mass that had to be moved forward (a chain, frex) would take away more of the energy from the arrow.
DrewID
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Diamondeye
When discussing, say, WWII naval battles, we never say that 2 battleships engaged each other with indirect fire. The 2 ships each directly located, aimed, and fired at their enemy once the engagement actually commenced, using either visual means or radar. Their fire was not generally directed at the enemy ship by an outside observer. On the other hand, an observer might very well direct ships firing at shore targets, making it indirect even though the ballistic performance of the projectile was similar in both situations.
Actually, indirect ship-to-ship fire was practised by the USN at least, though I'm unsure if it was ever used in action. Anyway, that's part of the reason why the US liked floatplanes so much and kept them in service until the early fifties.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thiel
Actually, indirect ship-to-ship fire was practised by the USN at least, though I'm unsure if it was ever used in action. Anyway, that's part of the reason why the US liked floatplanes so much and kept them in service until the early fifties.
I think that "theory" was pretty common, and most battleships carried floatplanes to be used both as scouts and artillery spotters. But I don't think it was ever actually used in battle.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Bow question:
I've learned that the flexibility of the arms of a bow are where most of the kinetic energy is supposed to come from, but what about the elasticity of the string?
Is it better to use a string that would stretch to give a little extra power, or is it preferable to use a string that will not stretch to lower the variability of a shot?
Also, in plain fantasy silliness, could a giant use a bow that was strung by a chain? Do chains have the qualities of a good bowstring? I imagine not...
As mentioned the biggest issue would probably be the weight. The energy produced when a bow is released has to be split based on the relative masses of the bow arms, the string, and projectile. If the first two weigh more then you have less energy transferred to the arrow.
Additionally, I don't think there was ever a need for ballistas and the like to ever use chain as a substitute.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
You also might lose a significant amount of energy to friction between the links of the chain, particularly if it was poorly lubricated.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Thanks for all the bow info! I actually asked because I recently taught my sister how to draw archers and I told her that the bow should deform from its original shape but should not stretch, especially in the string. Good to know I wasn't full of it!:smallbiggrin:
I didn't anticipate the chain bow getting so much attention.:smallsmile: Maybe I'll just say it works by magic, just like all those perfectly flat-sided, ragged-edge, fantasy swords. :smallcool:
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Thanks for all the bow info! I actually asked because I recently taught my sister how to draw archers and I told her that the bow should deform from its original shape but should not stretch, especially in the string. Good to know I wasn't full of it!:smallbiggrin:
I didn't anticipate the chain bow getting so much attention.:smallsmile: Maybe I'll just say it works by magic, just like all those perfectly flat-sided, ragged-edge, fantasy swords. :smallcool:
As a practical demonstration of a similar concept, take a belt and hold one end in each hand, can hold a bit in from the ends if it's more comfortable. The belt now droops downwards, and something could be set in the middle, resting on the belt.
Next, make sure there's nothing breakable above you.
Now give the ends a sharp tug sideways, away from each other. The object in the middle of the belt goes flying into the air.
Now dodge as it comes back down.
A similar example is if you double the belt over, move your hands in so the 2 belt strands bend away from each other, than pull the hands apart quickly creating a loud snapping sound as the ends quickly slap into each other.
In a bow, the bow itself does the pulling of the ends of the string as it regains its shape, acting as your hands did in the above example. A contrasting example is a slingshot, where the 'string' does the stretching, and regains its shape quickly. It seems like combining the two would work well, but it really doesn't.
Note in both situations the goal is to store energy over time (either by flexing the bow, pr stretching the slingshot band), which is then released quickly as it springs back into shape.
Now if you pull the string back a given amount on a bow, a rigid string will bend the bow more than a stretchy string. Why? Because the bow's pulling against the string, so if it can stretch easily to allow the bow to retain its shape, it will. You're losing flex in the bow, and not gaining anything besides stretch in the elastic.
If you pull with the same FORCE, you need to pull the string farther if it's stretchy. I'm actually not sure how the combination in this case would affect the arrow speed, but it would definitely depend on the particular properties of the bow and stretchy string (bungee cord? Underwear elastic? That sort of thing).
Given that you can only pull a bowstring back so far, the elastic bowstring rapidly becomes impractical, even if the arrow speed at the same force of pull would work out the same.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I've got one question.
I know that when gunpowder became widespread castles and knights and other "standard fare" of medeval europe declined. What I'm wondering is what the interum period looked like. Were there castle sieges with both sides employing gunpowder weapons, how were the storming actions in these sieges different from the ones before gunpowder, at what point did castles fully become replaced by "modern" forts (think forts like Ft McHenry or Fort Point).
I'm trying to run a game that takes place in the transition era between medeval europe and "black powder" europe and I've got the PC's about to storm a Fort/Castle and I'm trying to make it as realistic as possible.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
All this talk about bows and bowstrings!
Why is dry-firing a bow so bad for it? I've read repeatedly that its not good for any bow, and a modern compound bow could be ruined in just a few shots that way. I'm curious as to what exactly goes on to make it so awful to let the bow operate without an arrow.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
"Black powder Europe" lasts at least from the end of 14th century, while Medieval generally ends at the end of 15th, depending on area, although it's obviously very abstract boundary.
Sieges in stone castles last well into the end of 17th century, powder gives huge capabilities, but stone fortress is still fortress, especially with it's own guns.
Modern forts generally begun 'full scale' in 18th century, although obviously appropriate earth works started to develop as soon as cannons and co...
So it's very broad topic, but generally in 'transitional' period - in 'real life' it would be 16th and 17th century - would still see a lot of pretty 'medieval' sieges, only with cannon, mortars, tunnels to mine and blow up the walls, and so on.
Quote:
I know that when gunpowder became widespread castles and knights and other "standard fare" of medeval europe declined.
That is, as often mentioned, widespread misinterpretation.
Knights 'declined' because of social, political etc. changes, are obviously always material for books and books...
They evolved, or whatever into other forms of aristocracy, and similar groups, while heavy shock cavalry (which anyway wasn't always perfectly synonymous with 'knight') lasted very long into gunpowder still, even though
in most cases lance wasn't main weapon anymore.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deepbluediver
All this talk about bows and bowstrings!
Why is dry-firing a bow so bad for it? I've read repeatedly that its not good for any bow, and a modern compound bow could be ruined in just a few shots that way. I'm curious as to what exactly goes on to make it so awful to let the bow operate without an arrow.
You draw, a bow, it gathers certain amount of energy, and then you release it, but there's no arrow to receive this energy - so best part of energy is transfered into the movement of arms instead. Very quick and violent movement, of course. Pretty simple, really.
So it will be usually very ruinous for them indeed.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eulmanis12
I've got one question.
I know that when gunpowder became widespread castles and knights and other "standard fare" of medeval europe declined. What I'm wondering is what the interum period looked like. Were there castle sieges with both sides employing gunpowder weapons, how were the storming actions in these sieges different from the ones before gunpowder, at what point did castles fully become replaced by "modern" forts (think forts like Ft McHenry or Fort Point).
I'm trying to run a game that takes place in the transition era between medeval europe and "black powder" europe and I've got the PC's about to storm a Fort/Castle and I'm trying to make it as realistic as possible.
It's kind of a broad period. For a while there cannons seem to have given an advantage to the defense. Early bombards augmented other siege engines, gradually replacing them completely. The French "burgundian" carriage was considered revolutionary, but their impact is probably exagerrated. They did allow the guns to be emplaced more quickly.
The "trace italliene" was developed by about 1530, this is basically the design that Fort McHenry followed. In the interrum there was an "artillery fort". Basically castles became shorter with thicker walls. It was common to cut down the height of a tower and fill it with earth allowing heavy cannons to be placed on it. Old castles and forts could be upgraded, although often times they might be upgraded with temporary earthworks piled against the walls. Sometimes they filled the inside of the works with earth, both to provide a platform for artillery and to reinforce the walls. However, the pressure encouraged the walls to rupture outwards.
Stone cannonballs tended to break the walls into large chunks that could be difficult to storm. New forts and updated castles could be quite formidable, but plenty of old castles would still be around. Some new artillery forts, while not built to the trace italliene design, might have very thick walls, and possibly be countermined with vents. However, they were not cut for many cannons -- typically, the attacker had an advantage in artillery, and could take a very direct approach to the walls. This was usually the case from about 1500(?) to the late 1600s.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
A good example of a fort from the intermediate period is Fort de Salses, completed in 1503.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_de_Salses.
It was so well built that it impressed people over a hundred years after its completion, by which point its trace would have seemed very obsolete. Note the use of round towers on the fort -- this was popular with a lot of the early "artillery" forts. It created blind spots, however.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fusilier
It's kind of a broad period. For a while there cannons seem to have given an advantage to the defense. Early bombards augmented other siege engines, gradually replacing them completely. The French "burgundian" carriage was considered revolutionary, but their impact is probably exagerrated. They did allow the guns to be emplaced more quickly.
Cannons giving an advantage to the defense is somewhat regional. If you look at the emerging Ottoman Empire, which was using gunpowder fairly early you'll see a fairly large shift towards the attack. This is arguably part of the reason Constantinople fell when it did, and this advantage on the attack never really went away.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I wanted to add a little more information taken from Michael Mallett's, Mercenaries and their Masters. The context is Italy in the first half of the 15th century:
Quote:
The ponderous heavy guns could take weeks to get into position and prepare for action. Even then their rate of fire was exceptionally slow and their bombardment by no means accurate. They and their gunners had to be protected from counter-bombardment and enemy sortie. . . . It is strangely true that artillery contributed perhaps more to the defence of cities and fortresses than it did to their assault. Guns permanently mounted on the walls of a city could be supplied much more efficiently and used much more speedily and effectively than the guns of besiegers hauled up into temporary emplacements from many miles away. It was for these reasons that, as we shall see, the art of fortification changed relatively slowly in response to the new threat. What did happen quickly was that all the fortified places acquired massive collections of artillery with which to defend themselves.
He then gives several statistics:
Bologna had 35 pieces on its walls as early as 1381. Small papal fortresses like Soriano had 12 in 1449, and Ostia had 11, etc.
These wouldn't sound like "massive" amounts of artillery to someone from Vauban's era, but at the time were considered impressive.
However Mallett continues:
Quote:
The slowness with which siege pieces were moved into position was balanced, however, by the speed with which a heavy gun, once ready to fire, could breach the medieval fortifications of most Italian cities and castles. Thus if a siege lasted more than a few weeks, the chances were that the besieged would then quickly be forced to sue for terms, as shortages of supplies and breaches in their walls made defence difficult.
So he appears to be stating two things:
1. That defensive artillery made it difficult to emplace besieging guns.
2. However, once those besieging guns were successfully in place, the advantage would swing to the besieger.
It should be noted that these are general observations, and individual situations would vary.
He then notes that at the siege of Zagarolo in 1439, the besiegers only expended 6 tons of powder, and at Rimini in 1469, 12 tons. Whereas the French and Venetians fired 20,000 cannonballs at Verona in 1516, and Henry VIII's army used 32 tons of powder a day(!) in siege operations in 1513 in Northern France.
More relevant quotes:
Quote:
The crucial feature in the changes in fortifications produced by the use of gunpowder lay not in preparing walls which could withstand battery by artillery, but in using artillery to defend those walls, to hold the enemy at a distance and strike at his siegeworks. Hence it is on the bastion, the solid low tower, either round or angled, on which heavy guns could be mounted to fire outwards, that attention must be concentrated. . . .
. . .
The initial reactions of defenders to the threat of artillery were to thicken their walls and to scarp them so that the cannon shot would be deflected upwards. At the same time the cannon which soon appeared in the defences were used primarily to strengthen the crossfire from the towers and thus impede the assault. . . . Evidence of innovations of these limited types can be found going back into the fourteenth century, but at that time the pressure for change was not great enough nor the resources for dramatic rebuilding available to bring about major developments.
It was in the middle years of the fifteenth century that a number of fortresses were completely rebuilt according to new principles. The emphasis was on the small fortress rather than on extended city walls, . . . [He then rattles off a list of placenames and people] . . . All this was the work of the period between 1450 and 1494, and all the Italian states were spending heavily on fortifications.
Mallett's comments get pretty general, but he does have some other information about how sieges were conducted, and field fortifications, etc. I find sieges to be interesting, and the period you describe is a transitional one, which can make it more interesting, with many new things were being tried. It is also a period that tends to be glossed over (cannons appeared and castles gave way to the trace italienne). :-(
Somebody who appears to have written a fair amount about this time period is J. R. Hale, including some works that may be focused on this very topic, but his books don't seem to be easy to locate.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Spiryt
You draw, a bow, it gathers certain amount of energy, and then you release it, but there's no arrow to receive this energy - so best part of energy is transfered into the movement of arms instead. Very quick and violent movement, of course. Pretty simple, really.
So it will be usually very ruinous for them indeed.
Wth compound bows in particular, because you don't have the arrow guiding where you should pull the string back to, the wires can leave their grooves on the gears, thus when you release the string, you end up with a catastrophic bow failure with wires flying all over the place.
There's a couple good videos on youtube demonstating common compound bow failures and why you shouldn't dry fire a bow.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
eulmanis12
I know that when gunpowder became widespread castles and knights and other "standard fare" of medeval europe declined. What I'm wondering is what the interum period looked like.
As others have said, the transition was gradual and halting. I'm quite fond of the early sixteenth century myself. Francis I of France and the Chevalier Bayard exemplified the popular ideal of the knight in shining armor. While artillery had become militarily essential in this period - at least for the siege - handheld guns remained questionable. As late as 1548, Fourquevaux recommend the bow and crossbow over the arquebus, though he acknowledged the latter could penetrate any wearable armor at close range and with a proper charge. (I just read an account from later in the sixteenth century where a point-blank shot from an arquebus or musket completely pierced the target's armor but did him no harm. He promptly impaled his assailant with a halberd.) Fourquevaux cited a siege in which the best crossbowman killed more foes than the best five or six arquebusers. The fully armored knight who wielded the heavy lance remained potent on the battlefield until the end of the sixteenth century, though it became harder and harder to justify the expense of fielding such cavalry.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
for a pop culture reference: the Assassins creed 2 trilolgy happens in this "transitionary" phase (the gamse timespan is very roughly 1470-1520), and while firearms are around, crossbows are more common. have a look at that for an idea of cool, intresting small scale combat form that era (and cuase it's a bloody awesome triolgy that fixed a lot of the problems with AC1).
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Deepbluediver
All this talk about bows and bowstrings!
Why is dry-firing a bow so bad for it? I've read repeatedly that its not good for any bow, and a modern compound bow could be ruined in just a few shots that way. I'm curious as to what exactly goes on to make it so awful to let the bow operate without an arrow.
Newton's third law states: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"
When a bow if fired with an arrow, the energy stored in the arms of the bow is transfered from potential energy in a spring(the bow arms), to kinetic energy in the arrow. If there is no arrow, the energy has nowhere to go and remains in the arms of the bow causing them to vibrate violently. In a wooden bow this is bad. In a composite bow this is worse. In a high end Carbon bow, this can easily lead to the entire bow disintegrating into a pile of dust (I have personally witnessed this happening, the dry fired bow disintegrated into a powdery substance leaving the user holding a bow handle with nothing attached to it.)
Do not dry fire a bow. Even if it does not outright destroy the bow it causes signifigantly more fatigue on the bow than firing a normal shot.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Contravallation and Circumvallation
In the recent discussion of sieges I discovered a curious contradiction. These two terms often have their meaning reversed, and it's not clear to me which is correct.
In theory when an army was besieging a town or fortification, they would often set up these two lines. According to Christopher Duffy in Siege Warfare, they would first set up the lines of circumvallation, which, according to him, faced outwards! It protected the besieging army from an enemy field army, not from the besieged. To address any sorties being attempted by the besieged, the besiegers would then set up lines of contravallation (Duffy refers to them as countervallation). Contra meaning against, and therefore it was meant that these lines were "against" the walls.
A brief aside on the order in which these lines are constructed. At first it seemed odd to me that an army would set up outward facing defensive lines first, rather than inward facing ones. But at the time, (late medieval to renaissance), it looks like the besiegers typically greatly outnumbered the besieged, and they were more concerned about a large field army attacking them while they are preparing their siege works. Either line would serve to isolate the besieged from the outside.
Wikipedia gives the opposite definitions for these lines to wit: Circumvallation faces the besieged town/fortress, and Contravallation faces outward against the country side.
Several other websites make this argument too. I've been trying to track down what it was originally (at the very least, it means we can't actually rely upon the words without further clarification from the author/speaker).
I found an entry on google books, from a book called Extreme War, by Terrence Poulos: he claims that circumvallation is perhaps the most misused term, and supports the wikipedia definition of circumvallation and contravallation. He even provides a nifty graphic to help explain it. His argument seems to be based merely upon the root meanings of the words -- which is fairly weak, as they can easily be construed in either way (against the walls or against the countryside; around the castle, or around both the attacking army and the castle).
Poulos further claims that many historical and modern authors reverse the terms, and use them incorrectly, too many to point out, but he points out one person who "got it right": John Lynn, in his book The Wars of Louis XIV: 1664-1714. He then states that "the rest of you" (authors?) are on notice, and that the readers of his book "will be watching you."
Well it turns out that John Lynn's book is also available on google books, but only in snippet view. Nevertheless a snippet turns up this partial sentence:
Quote:
with complete rings of entrenchments: one facing inward toward the besieged works, the lines of contravallation; and the other facing outward to protect the attackers from attack by a relief army, the lines of circumvallation.
That appears to be exactly the opposite of what Poulos claimed . . .
Military dictionaries and glossaries were popular during the 19th century, here's one from 1802:
http://books.google.com/books?id=pix...gbs_navlinks_s
The definition of Contravallation that they give conforms to Duffy (lines of Contravallation face the besieged).
Anyway, I was wondering if anybody had any other sources to cite? It almost seems like Poulos has threatened people into using his reversed definitions with a profound effect on the internet, but not on print works.
--EDIT--
An older dictionary (1723), also agreeing with Duffy:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VuY...gbs_navlinks_s
This website, seems to imply that perhaps "circumvallation" was a term that could be used for either line (English armies during the Civil War didn't seem to bother digging two lines):
http://www.17thcenturylifeandtimes.c...%20thomas.html
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
For what it's worth, the OED says:
Circumvallation:
- 1. The making of a rampart or entrenchment round a place, esp. in besieging.
- b.line of circumvallation: a line of earth-works consisting of a rampart and trench surrounding a besieged place or the camp of a besieging army. So wall of circumvallation, etc.
- 2. A rampart or entrenchment constructed round any place by way of investment or defence.
And has citations with both meanings (defenders and besiegers), the earliest mention in 1641. Most of the citations with the second meaning (besiegers setting up lines of circumvallation) appear to be later (1836, 1876), though some of the references, even the earliest (1641) are ambiguous without longer context than the quotation they give.
While for Contravallation it says:
- 1. A chain of redoubts and breastworks, either unconnected or united by a parapet, constructed by besiegers between their camp and the town, as a defence against sorties of the garrison.
And citations from 1678 onward with this meaning, though again a few of these citations are ambiguous, for instance: "1678, L. de Gaya's Art of War ii. 113 Circumvallation and Contravallation, is a Composition of Redoubts, little Forts, and Angles with Trenches, and Lines of Communication from one to another round a place that is beseiged."
I dunno if that's at all helpful or not, heh.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
I always thought contravallation referred to walls set up opposing the enemy fortress. Because of, y'know "contra." So facing the besieged castle/city whatever.
Circumvallation I just read as encircling the enemy, so it could refer to walls facing either way.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike_G
I always thought contravallation referred to walls set up opposing the enemy fortress. Because of, y'know "contra." So facing the besieged castle/city whatever.
Circumvallation I just read as encircling the enemy, so it could refer to walls facing either way.
This makes sense, and I think that some authors clearly used the term circumvallation to refer to either type.
@Hades: I think that is helpful as it is finding older references. I'm not sure if the terms in English are much older than the 17th century (although they obviously have latin roots of some sort). Also, it shows that from a fairly early period, contravallation and circumvallation were being lumped together as works surrounding a besieged place.
Thanks!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fusilier
Contravallation and Circumvallation
Wikipedia gives the opposite definitions for these lines to wit: Circumvallation faces the besieged town/fortress, and Contravallation faces outward against the country side.
I think that is a case of widespread misunderstanding that is technically wrong. Many people who collect paychecks twice each month call it "bimonthly" paychecks, when in fact they are semimonthly. They call meetings set twice per year "biannual" when they are actually semiannual. When people want to debate it I point out that the bicentennial wasn't celebrated two hundred times a year, it was celebrated two hundred years after the founding. All those terms are related to the period of time between events, not the number of events in the base unit of time.
Circumvallation, it is noted, applies to defenders as well as beseigers. Many times a city has a series of forts or redoubts around the outskirts that together are called a circumvallation. They surround it outside the walls, which often enclosed a much smaller area than the actual urban area. When cities removed their walls as too expensive to maintain and ineffectual against cannon and the fortifications were still called circumvallations.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fusilier
@Hades: I think that is helpful as it is finding older references. I'm not sure if the terms in English are much older than the 17th century (although they obviously have latin roots of some sort). Also, it shows that from a fairly early period, contravallation and circumvallation were being lumped together as works surrounding a besieged place.
Thanks!
Not a problem, I always find it interesting to look up etymologies and whatnot in the OED. The oldest English reference the OED has to either of these words appears to be the 1641 reference to circumvallation, which is: "1641, Evelyn Diary: 3 Aug., At night we rode about the lines of circumvallation." This means that the diary is the oldest printed or manuscript use of the word known to the editors, so it is probable of course that it was in use before that, and that other references have been lost or remain unknown. The diary seems to be John Evelyn's Diary, which is linked from that wiki page.
As for etymologies:
For circumvallation, from the verb circumvallate: adapted from Latin circumvallātus past participle of circumvallāre, to surround with a rampart, from circum- + vallum (rampart).
And for contravallation: adaptation of French contrevallation, Italian contravvallazione, from Latin contra- + vallatiōn- entrenchment (from vallāre, to surround with a rampart, to entrench).
It might be interesting then to look into the early usage of the words in French, Italian, or Latin, but I don't have access to anything like that, I'm afraid - my Petit Robert unfortunately lacks both words.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Straybow
Circumvallation, it is noted, applies to defenders as well as beseigers. Many times a city has a series of forts or redoubts around the outskirts that together are called a circumvallation. They surround it outside the walls, which often enclosed a much smaller area than the actual urban area. When cities removed their walls as too expensive to maintain and ineffectual against cannon and the fortifications were still called circumvallations.
There's an old book from 1849/50 that is a first person narrative of the revolutions of 1848 in Italy, and ends with the siege of Rome and the fall of the "Roman Republic". I seem to remember the descriptions being that as the besieging French kept extending their line of "contravallation" the defenders kept extending their line of "circumvallation" -- but it's been some time since I've read that book.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hades
It might be interesting then to look into the early usage of the words in French, Italian, or Latin, but I don't have access to anything like that, I'm afraid - my Petit Robert unfortunately lacks both words.
I was thinking the same thing, but I also don't have the resources to study the terminology in other languages.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Do you know how modern armors are like a ceramic plate in a big pocket?
Were/ are there any examples of metal plate armor harnessed in a similar way? Part of the benefit of metal armor is its bling factor, so I doubt it.
I do know that brigandine and lamellar-
...
Well, well, well. I answered my own question by looking in wikipedia to confirm what I knew about brigandines. Even fairly large plates were held in cloth. Not quite as big as ceramic plates, though.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Thiel
Actually, indirect ship-to-ship fire was practised by the USN at least, though I'm unsure if it was ever used in action. Anyway, that's part of the reason why the US liked floatplanes so much and kept them in service until the early fifties.
It was theoretically possible, but during WWII, ay target that could have been hit by using a floatplane to adjust fire could also have been hit using radar fire control. In fact, most comparisons of WWII ships miss the point because they focus excessivley on armament size and armor thickness at the expense of fire control. Radar fire control was a major advantage.
I don't know if floatplane adjustment of fire was ever used in actual practice. The biggest problem with that would have been antiaircraft fire from the enemy. Also, it's much harder for an observer to adjust fire in ship-to-ship combat than for artillery on land because both the gun platform AND the target are moving, and there are few, if any, features to use to determine target location.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Do you know how modern armors are like a ceramic plate in a big pocket?
Were/ are there any examples of metal plate armor harnessed in a similar way? Part of the benefit of metal armor is its bling factor, so I doubt it.
I do know that brigandine and lamellar-
Well, very basic coats of plates, which would come to be ancestor of both white plate armor suits and brigandines, were basically something like this.... Although examples with plates actually pocketed between two layers of textile/leather would be probably pretty rare, usually just plates riveted to textile or leather backing
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Do you know how modern armors are like a ceramic plate in a big pocket?
Were/ are there any examples of metal plate armor harnessed in a similar way? Part of the benefit of metal armor is its bling factor, so I doubt it.
I do know that brigandine and lamellar-
...
Well, well, well. I answered my own question by looking in wikipedia to confirm what I knew about brigandines. Even fairly large plates were held in cloth. Not quite as big as ceramic plates, though.
It is said that such cloth fronted metal armours were the souce of "studded leather", that classic garment of DnD that has almost no historical basis. people looked at statues and paintings and such, saw that they were wearing what appeared to be a "soft" garment with little studs on it when they were clearly meant to be be dressed for war (wearing helmets, swords in hand, etc), and assumed that the studs must improve the protective value of the leather without questioning how. They get points for not assuming that the people in the past were dumb, as is so often the case ("oh, it was just a fashion to go into battle with steel armour on thier aems and thin leather on thier chests. it showed thier bravery!")
then agian, i am under the impressiont that leather armour was not very common either, with the padded Gambeson being the preferred l"ight" armour.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
How close is the weights given for armour in the 3.5 players handbook to how they would likely have weighed in real life?
And also, why did nobody carry on using spear-guns and gun-axes during Napoleonic era warfare?
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hazzardevil
How close is the weights given for armour in the 3.5 players handbook to how they would likely have weighed in real life?
And also, why did nobody carry on using spear-guns and gun-axes during Napoleonic era warfare?
It's pretty tricky question, as those armor types are a wee bit weirdly constructed, and there would be huge variety in actual armors. But generally they're alright.
Aside from the fact that 'studded leather' probably didn't really exist, 'splint mail' and "banded mail' represent hell knows what.
As far as second question goes, I'm not sure I get it, but...
Carrying additional weapons/gear is always a fuss and a problem, especially with something as awkward and clumsy as spear and gun....
Operating/carrying both rifle/musket and spear efficiently wouldn't really be possible, so bayonet was useful and widely used way to make gun a spear substitute.
As far as axe goes, I suppose that some soldiers could carry it, but again, in case of melee clash, they were all drilled to make it bayonet fight.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hazzardevil
And also, why did nobody carry on using spear-guns and gun-axes during Napoleonic era warfare?
Pretty much what Spiryt said. And it wasn't a case of "carrying on" using them. Nobody ever did for any length of time.
A bayonet is basically a "spear-gun," allowing the soldier to use his primary weapon for a projectile and melee weapon. "Axe guns" did exist as novelty weapons, but they'd be unnecessarily bulky as a musket-battleaxe, and would really be a worse melee weapon than a bayonet.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Do you know how modern armors are like a ceramic plate in a big pocket?
Were/ are there any examples of metal plate armor harnessed in a similar way? Part of the benefit of metal armor is its bling factor, so I doubt it.
I do know that brigandine and lamellar-
...
Well, well, well. I answered my own question by looking in wikipedia to confirm what I knew about brigandines. Even fairly large plates were held in cloth. Not quite as big as ceramic plates, though.
I thought steel plates are still sometimes used as an alternative to ceramics in modern body armor. Much heavier but less likely to shatter.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hazzardevil
How close is the weights given for armour in the 3.5 players handbook to how they would likely have weighed in real life?
Yes and no. It depends on what you qualify as the particular armour in the PHB.
Splint mail seems to be some kind of lamellar, or an assumption and that splinted bracers and greaves could be made info something providing full body coverage. Wikipedia has a very brief article about the stuff.
Banded looks like its an extrapolation of lorica segmentata. There are some Japanese armours that look similar to the horizontal bands in D&D's banded armour. Not sure what western style armour would be similar though.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Beleriphon
Splint mail seems to be some kind of lamellar, or an assumption and that splinted bracers and greaves could be made info something providing full body coverage. Wikipedia has a very brief article about the stuff.
Banded looks like its an extrapolation of lorica segmentata. There are some Japanese armours that look similar to the horizontal bands in D&D's banded armour. Not sure what western style armour would be similar though.
I always considered the Japanese style armor to be splinted. It is considerably clumsier and heavier than the Roman style. The SRD has splint one point worse for max Dex, armor check, and spell failure with weight 10 lb heavier than the 35 lb banded.
-
Re: Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Straybow
I always considered the Japanese style armor to be splinted. It is considerably clumsier and heavier than the Roman style. The SRD has splint one point worse for max Dex, armor check, and spell failure with weight 10 lb heavier than the 35 lb banded.
Ironically the Japanese armours for a long time did included splinted elements, on the shins and forearms. I'd imagine it has something to do with the fact that those parts of the body are completely inflexible.
So, splinted armour is real stuff, its just not that good for full body coverage if the historical record is to be believed.
Never mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splinted_mail