-
Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Real World Weapon, Armour and Tactics Thread XXI
This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons, armour and tactics. The concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better, thus it's here rather than in Friendly Banter.
A few rules for this thread:
- This thread is for asking questions about how weapons, armour and tactics 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 politics 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 (These are arbitrary dates but any dates would be, and these are felt to be 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!
Spoiler: Previous threads
Show
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
This isn't quite in the tactics category, but how did ancient armies tend to handle hygiene? I'm familiar with some of the specifics on the Roman side, including exactly which diseases predominated and how they were fought (to some extent, I'm not claiming expertise), but I'm wondering about other standards. Were there any particularly widespread techniques? Were there any really effective techniques that particular cultures got ahold of? Basically, if getting a surface level understanding, what particulars are worth learning?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
This isn't quite in the tactics category, but how did ancient armies tend to handle hygiene? I'm familiar with some of the specifics on the Roman side, including exactly which diseases predominated and how they were fought (to some extent, I'm not claiming expertise), but I'm wondering about other standards. Were there any particularly widespread techniques? Were there any really effective techniques that particular cultures got ahold of? Basically, if getting a surface level understanding, what particulars are worth learning?
Hygiene is most obvious by it's own absence up until shockingly modern times, militarily speaking. As late as the American Civil War it was far from unusual to find basics such as isolating the latrine trenches from water sources to be largely ignored.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vinyadan
They appear to be firing the cannon with a hot "wire" which would have been heated to red hot (by the brazier to the left), and then thrust through the vent hole.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vinyadan
An image I found interesting:
Unless it's artistic interpretation, they also have appeared to have stuck the rear end of the cannon into the ground so that it get better elevation, maybe to turn it into a bombard, so the shot can clear the walls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Knaight
This isn't quite in the tactics category, but how did ancient armies tend to handle hygiene? I'm familiar with some of the specifics on the Roman side, including exactly which diseases predominated and how they were fought (to some extent, I'm not claiming expertise), but I'm wondering about other standards. Were there any particularly widespread techniques? Were there any really effective techniques that particular cultures got ahold of? Basically, if getting a surface level understanding, what particulars are worth learning?
I've found a journal article that covers water supply hygiene in Chinese armies, but I don't have access to anything other than the abstract: Hygiene of Water Supply in Ancient China′s Army by Gong.
Basically water supply hygiene was very important - during the Zhou Dynasty (10th-3rd century BC), a rear service (logistics) official position called the Qiehu was established, whose sole job was to ensure the siting and digging of military wells. Various references to the importance of water hygiene continue through various Dynasties, all the way up to the last dynasty, the Qing.
There looks to be an even more useful article, The Controlling Measures of Epidemic Diseases Taken by the Chinese Ancient Governments by Shi, but the abstract isn't particularly useful by itself.
On a side note, I hate it when article abstracts do that - it's the scientific equivalent of getting [redacted] teased.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
Unless it's artistic interpretation, they also have appeared to have stuck the rear end of the cannon into the ground so that it get better elevation, maybe to turn it into a bombard, so the shot can clear the walls?
Hmmm. I interpreted it as poorly rendered perspective (not uncommon in medieval style artwork). But it could be as you described, although I'm not aware of such a practice.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
Unless it's artistic interpretation, they also have appeared to have stuck the rear end of the cannon into the ground so that it get better elevation, maybe to turn it into a bombard, so the shot can clear the walls?
Definitely looks like it to me, like it's an impromptu mortar. The archer is a possible point of comparison, looks like he's aiming upwards to shoot/suppress enemies on the battlements while the assault takes place. The cannon is pointing even more to the vertical.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fusilier
Hmmm. I interpreted it as poorly rendered perspective (not uncommon in medieval style artwork). But it could be as you described, although I'm not aware of such a practice.
After some thought, I'm inclined to agree with you on it being perspective rather than spiking it in. Analysing the picture a little, with a couple of assumptions:
The cannon is attached to a wheeled carriage, which means it's big enough to fit one and heavy enough to require one (or just enough of a pain in the arse to move about to need wheels).
This puts spiking just the carriage's limber into the ground for additional elevation into a dubious light as it would have to support the weight of cannon itself, the rest of the carriage and the recoil when it was fired, which is a bit of a tall order.
I've seen replica ECW-era cannon in action and the recoil is not insubstantial, even for small cannon. Stressing the limber in this way sounds like a good recipe for breaking it.
Bombards without a wheeled carriage achieved additional elevation by means of siting it on a hill, planks placed under the front end and liberal amounts of dirt shovelling. Siting a wheeled cannon on a slope or some other precarious base sounds like a excellent way of getting it to disappear down the slope or another accident when fired, so this method was probably very carefully used, if at all.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
After some thought, I'm inclined to agree with you on it being perspective rather than spiking it in. Analysing the picture a little, with a couple of assumptions:
The cannon is attached to a wheeled carriage, which means it's big enough to fit one and heavy enough to require one (or just enough of a pain in the arse to move about to need wheels).
This puts spiking just the carriage's limber into the ground for additional elevation into a dubious light as it would have to support the weight of cannon itself, the rest of the carriage and the recoil when it was fired, which is a bit of a tall order.
I've seen replica ECW-era cannon in action and the recoil is not insubstantial, even for small cannon. Stressing the limber in this way sounds like a good recipe for breaking it.
Bombards without a wheeled carriage achieved additional elevation by means of siting it on a hill, planks placed under the front end and liberal amounts of dirt shovelling. Siting a wheeled cannon on a slope or some other precarious base sounds like a excellent way of getting it to disappear down the slope or another accident when fired, so this method was probably very carefully used, if at all.
I was thinking much the same. Just standing it up like that I'm willing to say no way it's not tearing the limber to shreds when fired. If you can get it balanced enough.
More inclined to see it as an perspective issue with the rather logical solution of having the limber dig into the dirt to soften recoil.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
After some thought, I'm inclined to agree with you on it being perspective rather than spiking it in. Analysing the picture a little, with a couple of assumptions:
. . .
Bombards without a wheeled carriage achieved additional elevation by means of siting it on a hill, planks placed under the front end and liberal amounts of dirt shovelling. Siting a wheeled cannon on a slope or some other precarious base sounds like a excellent way of getting it to disappear down the slope or another accident when fired, so this method was probably very carefully used, if at all.
Also many medieval depictions of cannons seem to have had serious problems with perspective, especially when viewing the cannon from "behind." (although I've seen some that are pretty good).
See this image where the cannon appears to be shooting straight up:
(If the image doesn't load, see this page: http://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/...s-and-cannons/ )
It's possible that the end of the carriage's trail was buried, or blocked by a mound of earth, to prevent the cannon from recoiling. If it's a hoop-and-stave cannon (which it appears to be) the pressure would be quite low (relatively) and preventing it from recoiling wouldn't be too injurious. In other gun designs the recoiling of the carriage is intentional, and can only be limited so much without damage to the carriage.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Yeah, it appears to be the artists struggling with perspective, rather than a factual illustration.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Yes, I'd say it's a perspective thing. In both images the inclination is right according to perspective, assuming that the eye of the beholder is situated in the middle of the image, but the length of the barrel doesn't change according to it. Scientific perspective was an invention of Brunelleschi, who lived in the XV century. There often is a certain time needed to allow new techniques to bleed out into different areas, as they already have their own stylistic language.
Anyway, these images are very detailed; I personally wasn't expecting it, as they also show precise knowledge of how these things were operated.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Well, a new thread is a pretty good excuse to come back ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fusilier
Also many medieval depictions of cannons seem to have had serious problems with perspective, especially when viewing the cannon from "behind." (although I've seen some that are pretty good).
See this image where the cannon appears to be shooting straight up:
(If the image doesn't load, see this page:
http://www.dkfindout.com/uk/history/...s-and-cannons/ )
It's possible that the end of the carriage's trail was buried, or blocked by a mound of earth, to prevent the cannon from recoiling. If it's a hoop-and-stave cannon (which it appears to be) the pressure would be quite low (relatively) and preventing it from recoiling wouldn't be too injurious. In other gun designs the recoiling of the carriage is intentional, and can only be limited so much without damage to the carriage.
I'm going to respectfully take the contrarian view here and say I think sometimes they were aiming them at a very steep near-vertical angle, if not "almost strait up", especially when shooting at walls or towers. That would be my guess for both of those illustration. You see guns being used in all sorts of strange ways in field conditions.
"They" did, I think understand field conditions and hygiene issues, fairly well. As for the civil war, remember the general rule for all things medieval or early modern - don't look at the 19th Century and project backward. You can find many parallels that way, but you need to check them out very carefully.
I think they knew what to do and not to do, (like keeping latrines away from water, burying or burning bodies, eating healthy varieties of food, keeping food preserved and so forth), if by "they" you mean the smartest and most experienced commanders and leaders. There were also simultaneously many leaders every bit as ignorant as those Civil War commanders previously mentioned. But a lot of medieval armies were manned by pro's (even if these were also people who had other day jobs), and pro's wouldn't tolerate the kind of conditions that conscripts would. If they didn't know anything about all this the consequences of keeping armies in the field even for a short time, especially in sieges, would have been even worse than they were (and they were quite bad).
But the problem is there were always many factors that came into this, including the amount of discipline that could be imposed (either from above or fraternally) within the army. I was a medic in charge of these exact issues and I can tell you, it's not easy to tell some hungry people for example that their food is contaminated or tell some tired people they have to dig a new latrine slit trench, and this is in a national army controlled by a very organized State. As time in the field increases, especially during sieges, discipline goes down. Supplies go down, especially supplies of things slightly less critical than horse fodder, ammunition, water and food get used up. So stuff like lime becomes less available. Money to pay troops also almost always runs out which doesn't help discipline either. Time and enemy activity may also constrict opportunities to do what is needed.
Anyway, from the historical accounts, disease can and did spread very quickly during sieges and certain types of warfare. And appeared to be almost inevitable, unless the army could be kept in steady supply (such as by rivers) and was able to make camps that were very organized and more like little towns. Problems with the army also spread as the armies took food and horse fodder from the surrounding areas and simply wrought general destruction. This problem of disease and famine was actually one of the chief reasons for seemingly (to modern minds) confusing cultural limitations on war. Just like a lot of people today can't grasp the reasons for the Geneva Conventions ("why would you limit yourself in any way when conducting war!?" goes the outraged thinking). But for soldiers I think it's more obvious. Anyway in the medieval era there was a specific and very real concern that particular vicious war which included "scorched earth" tactics often led to famine, and famine led to outbreaks of Plague, which could then stick around for years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_War
For example in the aftermath of one war between the Teutonic Knights and Poland, called the "Hunger War", in which each side practiced "Scorched Earth", plague did break out resulting in more casualties for the Teutonic Order than if they had lost a major battle. This later led to more restrictions being placed on war by treaty and tradition, so that mass famine didn't occur again. Not always adhered to perfectly but surprisingly, war was conducted quite a bit in Latin Europe with these restrictions being at least somewhat respected. Of course some others, for example the Mongols, never played by those rules.
The original outbreak of black death, incidentally, started or at least coincided with a massive failed siege by the Mongols of some fortified redoubts held by the Genoese in the Crimea. Plague broke out in the Mongol camp and they catapulted the infected heads of their own dead into the Italian fortifications.
As for the whole knife vs. pistol debate, this is my opinion. First, I think it's foolish to outright dismiss the observations of someone like Mike who is a paramedic and former Marine Corps medic. I was an Army medic for only a little while and I learned a lot from it, especially I learned to respect the experience of guys like Mike who had more time on task than I did and reached higher levels of it. Medical care, especially emergency medicine and first aid, are extremely eye opening experiences that are not well or accurately portrayed in our popular culture and entertainment media for a variety of reasons. It's like being in another world.
That said my own opinion is that the knife issue is somewhat balanced by skill with the knife and how big the knife is. A longer bladed knife that is stiff enough not to break, like a bayonet, is much more deadly. And more intimidating, incidentally.
But other than that my opinion basically is the same as Mike's. Pistols can fail to do much harm too, or jam, but knives from my experience both as a medic and as someone who has been around some street violence, are often not very good at stopping the fight. People often don't even seem to know they were stabbed. So you have a high legal liability to safety ratio - in the sense that the person you want to dissuade may not be dissuaded at all, but you still might get in real bad trouble for wounding or killing them.
In some places people stab a lot, notably certain towns in the more northern parts of the British isles for example, but seem to use them more to wound or disfigure than to kill from the stats I've seen. Maybe cultural adaptation?
But I have seen first-hand a buddy of mine chase a guy 4 blocks before realizing he'd been stabbed bad enough that his lung eventually collapsed. This is one of the reasons for self defense I prefer something like brass knuckles or a collapsible baton, and / or a gun, to a knife. And the knives I like are the big, very stiff and very strong ones that won't break. I have seen a lot of folding knives break and I've seen a lot of people cut themselves real bad with their own knives. Anyway my $0.02 as well, I don't expect it to be taken for gospel.
Finally, as to that old issue from many pages back in the previous thread about the gnomish company of catapult guys. I am going to be contrary yet again and say I don't think that is so unthinkable, in fact I think you did have groups of specialists just like that. It's just that like most people in the medieval world they had day jobs. They had other jobs, in other words. There were some full time condottieri etc. but most medieval mercenaries, even the knightly ones, did other things most of the time. They were craft artisans or merchants, sometimes even priests, or they ran their estates, participated in warlike sports like tournaments and jousts, and engaged in diplomacy and so forth. Medieval people were "Renaissance Men" in the sense that they often were good at a lot of different things. So I think your siege weapon mercs could very well have existed.
An example of travelling gun mercs. There was a Hungarian or German guy called Orban who apparently made some amazing big guns for the Turks. One they used for over 400 years, causing a couple of hundred casualties against the British as late as the 19th Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
Finally, as to that old issue from many pages back in the previous thread about the gnomish company of catapult guys. I am going to be contrary yet again and say I don't think that is so unthinkable, in fact I think you did have groups of specialists just like that. It's just that like most people in the medieval world they had day jobs. They had
other jobs, in other words. There were some full time condottieri etc. but most medieval mercenaries, even the knightly ones, did other things most of the time. They were craft artisans or merchants, sometimes even priests, or they ran their estates, participated in warlike sports like tournaments and jousts, and engaged in diplomacy and so forth. Medieval people were "Renaissance Men" in the sense that they often were good at a lot of different things. So I think your siege weapon mercs could very well have existed.
An example of travelling gun mercs. There was a Hungarian or German guy called Orban who apparently made some amazing big guns for the Turks. One they used for over 400 years, causing a couple of hundred casualties against the British as late as the 19th Century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban
Actually what most considered unthinkable was having someone lug around complete machines as a mercenary. I think we all agreed that the knowledge was often "mercenaried". Orban didn't bring his own guns after all, only his own knowledge.
Have you ever ran into an actual mercenary artillery* unit, "guns" and all?
*artillery/guns being used as a very generic terms what with antiquity and renessains eras beign considered
Actually just ran into a fairly interesting illustration from a book on Samurai by Turnbull of a cannon propped up on rice bags or something to elevate it.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
Actually what most considered unthinkable was having someone lug around complete machines as a mercenary. I think we all agreed that the knowledge was often "mercenaried". Orban didn't bring his own guns after all, only his own knowledge.
Have you ever ran into an actual mercenary artillery* unit, "guns" and all?
*artillery/guns being used as a very generic terms what with antiquity and renessains eras beign considered
Actually just ran into a fairly interesting illustration from a book on Samurai by Turnbull of a cannon propped up on rice bags or something to elevate it.
Yeah. I do know of some large condottiere companies that had an artillery component, but I've never encountered an independent mercenary artillery "unit". Typically states owned the cannon but they contracted out their operation.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
I'm going to respectfully take the contrarian view here and say I think sometimes they were aiming them at a very steep near-vertical angle, if not "almost strait up", especially when shooting at walls or towers. That would be my guess for both of those illustration. You see guns being used in all sorts of strange ways in field conditions.
Oh yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they sometimes fired them at steep angles -- but I doubt they stood them up on their trails, with the wheels hanging in the air.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
fusilier
Oh yeah, it wouldn't surprise me if they sometimes fired them at steep angles -- but I doubt they stood them up on their trails, with the wheels hanging in the air.
Well, who knows. But from accounts they seem to have been used in all kinds of quirky ways, particularly the smaller guns. How guns were used varies of course enormously by the type and region and who owned them. But going back to the subject of cannon and mercenaries, I only have a very limited picture, but the following 15th Century sources give some clues:
Records of the Teutonic and Livonian Knights
Records of military societies like the "Brotherhood of the Blackheads" in Riga and Dorpat etc.
Records of several small Central European towns related to their militia being deployed or hired for wars
Chronicles of the Hanseatic towns (which I know you dispute the validity of)
Records (letters mostly) from Janos Hunyadi and Matthias Corvinus about the Black Army
Letters from George of Podebrady, King and military leader of Bohemia
Letters from Condottieri such as Jan Jiskra
Letters and anecdotes from people like Enea Piccolomini and Jan Dlugosz who were eyewitnesses
So from those sources, in no particular order, I know the following
1) Those really big named 'superguns', the giant bombards like the "Grosse Bosche" etc., were sometimes lent or rented out for battles or confrontations. Presumably they sent experts with them though I don't know many details. There is some stuff in the wiki's for some of them (particularly the non-English language wikis)
2) Smaller towns routinely hired out small militia forces as mercenary companies or committed them as nominal feudal obligations (usually for money, therefore blurring the line between vassal and mercenary) and these forces typically included a small number of men with a large amount of kit, usually including guns and cannon and a lot of ammunition, and other experts like smiths, carpenters, wheelrights, stonemasons and so on who were helpful in sieges and specifically in handling the guns. The one example that comes to mind immediately is the anecdotes from Regensburg of their deployment during the Hussite wars because it has so much detail on the kit and was cited by Hans Delbruck and frequently repeated since (including by me in various incarnations of this thread), but there are dozens of similar accounts in Dlugosz for example.
A lot of times (as in the Regensburg example) these small forces met up with larger, less well equipped armies and acted as their firepower hard core and their support element.
3) Hunyadi, Dlugosz, Jan Jiskra and Piccolomini all mention the use of small, expert mercenary companies of Bohemians, Cossacks or Germans who were mostly again, organized around guns, and specifically gun-wagons, or gun-boats. So forces of say 200 guys with 10 or 15 small guns. There were several of these documented in the region of what was then northern Hungary, now Slovakia.
Incidentally, I think Cortez's original small army of 500 guys, mostly light infantry, in Mexico had about a half dozen small artillery pieces if I remember correctly.
4) The Teutonic and Livonian knights have records of hiring mercenaries and hosting groups of visiting Crusaders who usually came in small but well equipped expert war-bands of either light or heavy cavalry, gunners / archers / crossbowmen, or cannon. Smaller cannon typically on gun-wagons or boats.
5) The Brotherhood of the Blackheads interestingly mention donating some guns and some kind of undefined "stone throwing weapons", maybe catapults, in the 16th Century (which is a little later than you would expect to see such weapons, but maybe not?). They were later used with success in the Livonian Wars against the invading Muscovite armies.
6) I won't get into the Hanseatic sources since you dispute them, but they show a similar pattern.
I'm not sure I could cite these examples, with the exception of the superguns, as purely built around cannon, but a lot of them were heavily oriented toward their cannon and cannon systems (mainly riverboats with guns and / or wagons with guns) at least in that part of Central Europe East of the Elbe.
Another example I just thought of was a small force of Bohemian mercenaries hired by the Poles to fight in the famous battle of Orsha. The battle was mainly a huge cavalry engagement but a small group of Czech gunners, with a combination of handguns and (probably small or medium caliber) cannon are apparently what turned the tide in favor of the Poles, against the Muscovites. You can see the Czechs behind their wagons almost hidden in the upper right corner of the famous (and excellent) painting of the battle:
Spoiler: Battle of Orsha, look in the very upper right corner
Show
Direct link for more detail:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...Orsz%C4%85.jpg
So I guess you could argue it many different ways, but it seems to me that in the 15th Century, there were a lot of part time mercenaries and other small groups of fighters (militia, Crusaders, etc.), basically a whole category of them, who were oriented around cannons (and possibly even also mechanical or torsion stone throwers of some kind, based on the example of the Brotherhood of the Blackheads).
It's dangerous to make assumptions of course but there is no reason I can think of to assume that the similar equivalent couldn't have existed with small and medium sized catapults, ballistae and so on in the pre-gunpowder era (mid 13th Century and before) who may have hired themselves out the same way. One thing that is unclear is how such weapons were used, were they only for sieges or were they also used in open field battles the way the Romans apparently used scorpions and so on?
Overall I think there is some room for that gnomish company though.
.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
So, I have a question. The man who died on a Tesla some time ago was an ex Navy Seal. How many SEALS are there?
And another question. SEALS are trained very well; this makes them at the same time an investment (which you want to see bring results) and a valuable good (which you don't want to lose too fast). How much are SEALS actually used? Are they constantly deployed? And how good is their chance to end service alive?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vinyadan
So, I have a question. The man who died on a Tesla some time ago was an ex Navy Seal. 1)How many SEALS are there?
And another question. SEALS are trained very well; this makes them at the same time an investment (which you want to see bring results) and a valuable good (which you don't want to lose too fast). 2.How much are SEALS actually used? 3.Are they constantly deployed? 4.And how good is their chance to end service alive?
1) exact numbers are, of course, classified, but its in the low hundreds range
2) they are used all the time. As you said, they are a considerable investment, so they get utilised as much as
on a regular basis.
3) some part of the SEALS is deployed, somewhere, but I have no idea how often the individual solider is deployed. you need to balance the operational needs for his skills with putting too much pressure on him and "burning him out".
4) to my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of SEAL live though their service and retire into a peaceful civilian life. they just don't make the news.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Storm Bringer
4) to my knowledge, the overwhelming majority of SEAL live though their service and retire into a peaceful civilian life. they just don't make the news.
Indeed. Watch out for the dude who when pressed "was a cook in the Navy, nothing more".
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?
Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?
Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PersonMan
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?
Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?
The biggest thing is that important but tedious jobs like patrolling start to not get done, because the low-morale troops don't want to do them and don't have the motivation to do them anyway. Drug use can easily become a problem as well.
Quote:
Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?
If supplies are scarce, the goal of the soldiers becomes "get more supplies". Troops are very likely going to start making extensive effort to salvage enemy weapons and ammunition from the battlefield or start raiding enemy supply convoys solely to get food. In cases where the army is operating in friendly country, temporarily returning troops to civilian life until supply lines are reestablished can work as well. The early part of the Guadalcanal campaign (in which the Navy withdrew after landing the first wave of Marines, leaving the Marines unsupplied) or guerilla movements such as the PLA or USFIP are good historical models here.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PersonMan
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?
Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?
Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?
The equipment is always scarcer than you want, the food is always worse. Marines (and soldiers, I assume) always bitch and moan.
Morale will be fine as long as the troops feel they can trust one another. I may be cold, wet, tired, hungry and pissed off at everyone from my fire team leader through the Commandant of the Corps to the President and every idiot sitting safe at home who voted for the President. But if I know that the Marines in my squad will have my back, I can function as part of that unit.
Once a soldier doesn't trust the rest of the unit, he stops taking chances, starts looking out for numero uno and the mission becomes "minimize my own personal risk." Whish means that patrols get half-assed, since aggressive patrolling is dangerous to the individual even though it makes the unit safer. Maybe I don't go look very hard for mines and snipers (again, because those things can kill you) and I just say I did and it looks clear. Or I hide in the bottom of my hole instead of shooting back, because putting my head above the lip of the hole is dangerous.
Lots of things that are important for the safety and success of the whole are the exact opposite of things that are safe for the individual.
This goes back as far as war. The first pikeman who runs away has the best chance to survive if the unit breaks, but the unit has the best chance to not break if nobody runs. And if nobody runs, more of them will survive overall.
Morale is high when I care more about my unit than myself. Once I start thinking "screw those guys, I'm going to worry about me" my personal morale is broken, and I am no longer an asset, but a liability. Everyone has a breaking point, and combat is stressful. Once enough of the troops have passed their breaking point, the unit is effectively useless.
The best way for authority to boost morale is to have officers and NCOs share the hardships with the men and demonstrate concern and willingness to expose themselves to as much danger as they ask the men to. Men will carry on if they think everyone else is going to. Nobody wants to be the first to break, and the example starts with the leaders. They set the tone.
The other thing a military can do is rotate troops out and let them rest and refit. Troops effectiveness will deteriorate over time in active campaigning. You can preserve it longer by rotating troops out and letting fresh troops take the heat for a while.
Little things like better rations, new equipment, clean socks (clean socks are like a +10 Morale bonus to everything) help. The men think the command cares about them, so they are more reluctant to let the unit down. How likely the wounded are to get treatment has an effect as well. If I'm pretty sure my buddies will pull me out and get me to medical care, I'm more likely to risk myself. If the wounded are left on the field to suffer and die, I'm going to make sure I'm not the guy who gets wounded.
Most armies are defeated by broken morale. You don't generally have to kill all of them , just make enough of them give up and start looking out for number one.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
A practical example is the fall of Mosul in 2014. Absolute lack of identity in the army, fragmentation, the idea in some groups that serving the government wasn't in their best interest, together with possibly a number of problems which generally plague Arab armies ( http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars ), the fact that the State they were serving looked more like an assumption than reality and assorted fears and distrust made it so that 30.000 men were defeated by 2.000, with some joining the opposing side and others changing clothes, abandoning weapons and posts and hiding among the civilians. (This is why ISIS is currently under control of American-made 155mm M198 howitzers).
This could also be observed during the American invasion of 2003, when some Iraqi soldiers even tried to surrender to a journalist troupe. However, some elite units with esprit de corps did put up resistance, with the best example to my knowledge being the Republican Guard Medina Division, which scored the only Iraqi victory in the war during the attack on Karbala. The attack actually had the purpose of hitting the morale of the Iraqi army through the destruction of what was perceived to be its best division. The same unit quietly disbanded during battle ten days later, however.
Anyway, the point is that widespread low morale can bring to unexpected collapse, on levels which are unimaginable for armed forces in a "standard" situation.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PersonMan
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?
Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?
Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?
You might want to look at examples from WW1 (if that's modern enough). Poor morale and distrust of leadership led to large scale mutinies occurred which are quite different in condition and effect from what Mike_G describes.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mike_G
Once a soldier doesn't trust the rest of the unit, he stops taking chances, starts looking out for numero uno and the mission becomes "minimize my own personal risk." Whish means that patrols get half-assed, since aggressive patrolling is dangerous to the individual even though it makes the unit safer. Maybe I don't go look very hard for mines and snipers (again, because those things can kill you) and I just say I did and it looks clear. Or I hide in the bottom of my hole instead of shooting back, because putting my head above the lip of the hole is dangerous.
Another good - in fact, exact - example would be the behavior of many Argentinean conscripts during the Falklands War.
On the topic of Arab militaries, Kenneth Pollack's doctoral thesis will answer any questions you have more thoroughly than everything else I've seen; many of the popular conceptions are oversimplifications or wrong (like the emphasis on the relationship with the USSR as a source of bad practices). It's less than 800 pages long, too, so it's worth a look if you're interested. He also wrote a book based on it, but the book's a bit watered down and doesn't examine all the possible alternative hypotheses quite as convincingly.
The reason I bring it up is because of something common between the Argentinean experience and most of the Arab catastrophes: abusively bad relations between the officer corps and the conscripts. When Arab units have collapsed under pressure, it has often (if not usually) been the officers that disappeared first.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
So while I was making a grueling drive across the country, I got to wondering about how roads were built and maintained in the far past, and how thry may have differed between regions/cultures, as well as how this would effect troop movement.
I imagine a lot of roads start out as well worn paths that many people travel, did many of them remain just dirt pathways, or was there more to it than that?
I also had another question for the indeterminate sized heron riders, we talked about bows/xbows/and javelins, along with dropping heavy/pointy/burny things, but what about things like slings or sling shots?
Would a stone from such a weapon care as much about wind as a bolt or arrow?
I'm restricted to an ipod right now ao I appologize if anything is a little extra squirrelly, writing in this thing is a pain...
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
It depends on the stone. When it comes to sling ammunition, you can think of there as being a few distinct common materials, and a few distinct common shapes, plus various edge cases. Materials-wise, you generally got either clay, stone, or lead. Stone is a pretty large category, but looking at all the materials you can effectively think of denser materials as being less affected by wind and air resistance overall. With regards to shape, you usually had spherical, oblong, or football shaped projectiles, with football shaped projectiles designed to be more aerodynamic. In the context of stones picked up off the ground it was about finding approximately spherical or oblong stones that were good enough. Then there's size, where bigger projectiles are generally less effected by wind than smaller ones of the same shape and density, mostly because of the matter of how mass scales compared to cross sectional area.
Speaking really generally, I'd say that glandes are generally less susceptable to wind and air resistance, particularly in the context of falling speed.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cobaltstarfire
So while I was making a grueling drive across the country, I got to wondering about how roads were built and maintained in the far past, and how thry may have differed between regions/cultures, as well as how this would effect troop movement.
I imagine a lot of roads start out as well worn paths that many people travel, did many of them remain just dirt pathways, or was there more to it than that?
It would likely depend on where the road is and what it's used for - main roads near to a major trade settlement would be well maintained and made of stone, in order to facilitate the movement of goods and people in and out, while a small hamlet might have a rutted track that turns into mud for 8 months of the year, a well worn path to the nearest place of worship, and everyone who lives there normally uses their own knowledge of the local woods to get to anywhere else outside the hamlet they need to be.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
cobaltstarfire
So while I was making a grueling drive across the country, I got to wondering about how roads were built and maintained in the far past, and how thry may have differed between regions/cultures, as well as how this would effect troop movement.
I imagine a lot of roads start out as well worn paths that many people travel, did many of them remain just dirt pathways, or was there more to it than that?
Generally roads weren't maintainted much in the faux medieval period. Until fairly late the best roadengineers in Europe was the Romans and their roads was all that anyone really had. That we'd recognize as roads anyway. And almost all major medieaval roads followed, were built on or just was the Romand roads.
Also generally roadmaintenance tended to fall upon those living along the road, as it is in many places still, even in developed countries the owner of a building might be responsible for the sidewalk even though such things tend to fall
Still generally the more people were around the "better" the road, and more likely to have an attempted pavement. So towns could ahve paved roads sort of "fading off" as we are removed from their area of influence.
Majorally speaking major features such as bridges were more likely to be maintained in a more systematic capacity, so various bridge and road tolls have ancient pedigree. Could even be the nucleous for a society. And often might be the responsability of a local potentate of some kind.
Yes differing regions would have vastly different roadnetworks, geography determines a lot. Which is why "road" in Scandinavia meant a beaten path through the forest you barely got a horse through except in winter when you used the frozen rivers. Until like the 1800s.
Sergeantilly roads, where not made by the Romans pretty much, would be a snaking path of local roads, with the main feature being a marker telling you how far you are (a major development). You start broadening that, and trying to cut out a better path, removing rocks and perhaps try to avoid the worst places.
Unsurprisingly this has a major impact on troop moments, where many places in the interior of Scandinavia e.g. it was a firm "nope" (not impossible, but it was a good way to get rid of your army). But it varies a lot, smaller forces more lightly armed could move much easier through broken and roadless country on paths. Anyone used to having good roads were at a disadvantage in suhc conditions, wheras ofc the opposite was true in "open country" where the more organised army can bring more force to bear. Romans and the Germanic tribes, obviously.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snowblizz
Generally roads weren't maintainted much in the faux medieval period. Until fairly late the best roadengineers in Europe was the Romans and their roads was all that anyone really had. That we'd recognize as roads anyway. And almost all major medieaval roads followed, were built on or just was the Romand roads
This is true, though the perspective is of course Scandinavian, but the roads of Northern Germany, England and France wasnt (on average) much better. Of course paved roads existed, but they were rare, and mainly in and around towns, or between two closely placed towns.
I have excavated several roads (though thier date is very hard to determin...), and basically they consist of a set of wheel tracks cutting deeper and deeper into the ground, until the carts cant drive there, and they are moved a some distance to either side. Some of the better roads do sometimes have one or two ditches for drainage though (at least from the 16th century, but quite possibly also before), that the locals had to maintain.
Bridges are of course built and maintained and are important (as snowblizz say), and sometimes the road might be paved close to the bridge to accommodate the heavy traffic. Then some hundred meters away the road would branch out to several smaller roads which might not be paved. We have such patches of paved roads going back to at least the Iron Age in Scandinavia.
Other possibilities are timber built roads, or roads reinfoced when crossing wetlands etc (very common in the Netherlands and Denmark, some of the Netherlands ones are quite decent).
Of course the extensive Roman road network was maintained in some places, and even expanded in some areas during the medieval. How well they were maintained is hard to tell. I have also seen decent roads from ancient china... So I expect it to depend on your sense of period, and organisation in the respective area.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Scimitars.
Why?
Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asmodean_
Scimitars.
Why?
Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?
A curved blade makes draw and push cuts easier and more efficient.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
What I write is specific to Early Medieval Ireland, since that's what I know best. It is also somewhat abstract since it is based mainly on law tracts. In Ireland there were multiple categories of road: a slige which had to be wide enough for two chariots to pass each other easily, a rout wide enough for one chariot and two horsemen, a lámraite a small road which connected two larger ones, a tógraite a road which was rented by a private individual who could collect tolls from travelers, and a bóthar or "Cow Road" which had to be as wide as two cows.
The larger roads were by law built of branches, stones, and earth. The story Tochmarc Étaíne describes the hero Midir building a road through a bog as a result of a wager, he lays down tree trunks and covers it with gravel and stones. The roads were supposed to be maintained by the local king and to be renovated every winter, before fairs, and during war. If a traveler was injured on the road it was the local king who had to pay compensation.
Natural features can also be incorporated into traveling routes. The Riada Esker in Ireland is a system of ridges formed by sand, gravel, and rocks deposited by meltwaters flowing underneath a glacier. The Riada Esker was called the "Great Way" and connected the West and East coasts.
In prehistory, there are remnants of Iron Age trackways that have been found in Ireland. Many are made from woven hurdles laid on brushwood, but there are some built of split planks that could accommodate wheeled vehicles. The most famous of these constructions is the Corlea Trackway dated to 148-147 B.C.
Spoiler: Corlea Trackway Images
Show
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hoosigander
In Ireland there were multiple categories of road: a slige which had to be wide enough for two chariots to pass each other easily, a rout wide enough for one chariot and two horsemen, a lámraite a small road which connected two larger ones, a tógraite a road which was rented by a private individual who could collect tolls from travelers, and a bóthar or "Cow Road" which had to be as wide as two cows.
For context, how wide were the chariots in use at the time?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
For context, how wide were the chariots in use at the time?
Roughly 6 feet.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PersonMan
Question: in the context of a modern army, what sort of impacts will you see from progressively worsening morale?
Presumably, badly-motivated or even anti-war conscripts would pull down their units, but how strong would this effect likely be?
Additionally, what sort of measures would be taken to try and maintain fighting capability for as many troops as possible even as equipment begins to grow scarce?
Read up on the US Army in Vietnam during the 70's. That is about as bad as it gets. Pretty interesting too.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BayardSPSR
For context, how wide were the chariots in use at the time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Max_Killjoy
Roughly 6 feet.
Max_Killjoy is correct, a chariot would be around six feet wide. However, it is important to note that estimate is based on evidence from British and Continental Celtic chariots. The evidence for chariots in Ireland are mentions in literary and legal sources and some depictions on High Crosses. Unfortunately, no one has found chariots deposited in graves like in Britain and Continental Europe, there is some archaeological evidence in the form of linchpins, but nothing as extensive as elsewhere.
Spoiler: Ahenny Cross
Show
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
I thought I once read that a really good punch should use the last two knuckles, on the ring and little fingers, as the point of contact. I'm not sure where I read this and I don't know if there's any reason for this to be true. Is it mechanically stronger to hit that way? The best reason I can think of for punching this way to to limit damage to the index and middle fingers, as those are used more often for fine manipulation.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
I thought I once read that a really good punch should use the last two knuckles, on the ring and little fingers, as the point of contact. I'm not sure where I read this and I don't know if there's any reason for this to be true. Is it mechanically stronger to hit that way? The best reason I can think of for punching this way to to limit damage to the index and middle fingers, as those are used more often for fine manipulation.
Depends on your punching technique.
If you punch a lot using a vertical fist (called a 'sun' fist in Chinese martial arts as the fist resembles the Chinese character for the sun 日), then contact with the last two knuckles is preferable due to body alignment and how the punch is thrown (usually from the elbow and along the 'centre line', but I can only say for the style I've studied).
If you punch a lot with the more regular horizontal fist, then the index and middle finger knuckles are better for the same reasons.
There's a fair amount of debate (ie angry internet raging) of which is better, but regardless of how you punch, you do have to condition (ie train) the appropriate knuckles to take the impact and make sure you have good technique.
When I was first starting out training, I cracked my ring finger knuckle and it took a couple years for it to heal fully (known as a Boxer's fracture).
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asmodean_
Scimitars.
Why?
Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?
Think about a straight edge intersecting with a body.
Assuming a roughly cylindrical body and a horizontal cut the blade should impact as the tangent to the surface which helps greatly with damage efficiency.
Problem - yes it impacts as a tangent, but it probably isn't the bit you were aiming for. To get a straight edge to hit the exact spot you want means you have to come in at a very, very specific angle. Given armour etc., this actually makes the cutting sword not that efficient.
Now consider the curved edge hitting the cylinder (the scimitar or sabre).
Although the blade cannot be said to form the tangent to the cylinder, the blade's tangent will be the cylinder's (body's) tangent at the point of intersection - still and efficient way of cutting.
However, hitting the part of the cylinder you want is now much easier - hitting with a different part of the blade hits a different part of the cylinder from the same striking angle - you have more options to achieve the hit you want.
Now whilst a cylinder is a good approximation in some cases, it is poor one in others.
Try hitting a flat surface: The straight edge hits at an angle - pretty much guaranteed (OK it is fine for hitting the corners).
The curved edge still hits with its tangent being the flat surface (up to the limit of curvature).
As Max_killjoy said above, the scimitar is far more efficient for cutting that a straight edge in combat.
(In a kitchen one is trying to do very different things, but look at old carving knives - curved edge. Also look at the cutters used to section pizza - curved edge.)
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Also look at the cutters used to section pizza - curved edge.
Appeal to pizza, thats a new one.
Sorry i now it's true, but having it pointed out is funny somehow.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Khedrac
As Max_killjoy said above, the scimitar is far more efficient for cutting that a straight edge in combat.
To follow up on my earlier comment, this is because a sword or knife edge does not just push through what it's cutting -- it has to slide along the surface to some degree. A curved blade more naturally falls into a push or pull of the blade across the surface of the target as a part of the swinging or even thrusting motion.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Asmodean_
Scimitars.
Why?
Why not just a regular straight blade that'd be (presumably) easier to make?
Note also that a curved blade is not necessarily any more difficult to make. One way to define the edge geometry of a sword is to forge the edge bevels in with a hammer prior to grinding and polishing the blade. Beveling in this manner does not remove any material from the blade, so since you are taking the same amount of material and making it thinner, it will to curve the blade, with the beveled edge on the outside of the curve. Forging in the bevel of a single edge blade in other words naturally gives you a curved sword. If you watch a smith bevel a double edged sword , they alternate which side of the blade they're working, in order to keep the piece straight.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
Depends on your punching technique.
If you punch a lot using a vertical fist (called a 'sun' fist in Chinese martial arts as the fist resembles the Chinese character for the sun 日), then contact with the last two knuckles is preferable due to body alignment and how the punch is thrown (usually from the elbow and along the 'centre line', but I can only say for the style I've studied).
If you punch a lot with the more regular horizontal fist, then the index and middle finger knuckles are better for the same reasons.
There's a fair amount of debate (ie angry internet raging) of which is better, but regardless of how you punch, you do have to condition (ie train) the appropriate knuckles to take the impact and make sure you have good technique.
When I was first starting out training, I cracked my ring finger knuckle and it took a couple years for it to heal fully (known as a
Boxer's fracture).
Thank you for the information. How does one condition bones like that? Does every bone along the arm need to get conditioned or just the striking bones?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carl
Appeal to pizza, thats a new one.
Sorry i now it's true, but having it pointed out is funny somehow.
Appeal to pizza is my favorite logical fallacy and I always fall for it when there's real pizza involved. :smallbiggrin:
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
No brains
Thank you for the information. How does one condition bones like that? Does every bone along the arm need to get conditioned or just the striking bones?
The same way you condition any part of your body, painfully. :smalltongue:
More seriously, hitting things hard enough repeatedly will cause damage to the structures involved - as that inescapable SOB Newton said, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, so if you're hitting things at 1.5kN, that 1.5kN is also being applied back into your body. In the case of punching, it causes micro fractures in the bones, primarily in the metacarpals but the stresses involved will also slightly damage the rest of the muscles involved (arm, core, shoulder, etc), the tendons connecting the muscles, the bone where those tendons attach, the joints, etc. With proper rest and diet, the body will heal the damage, making the repaired structures stronger, thus allowing you to punch harder, which damages the body again, etc.
The repeated impacts to the knuckles also tends to make them more prominent - if you look at a fighter's hands, you can see how they tend to land their punches (in my case, it's the index, middle and ring fingers as I'm quite fond of the backfist punch). I've heard of Muay Thai practioners help their shin bone conditioning by initially rolling a glass bottle over the shin then progressing to rougher and harder materials inbetween their training sessions.
If you meant the actual biological processes of how the body repairs such damage, I can go into the detail of that but detailing how the bone repairs itself via fibroblasts forming a callus and the subsequent mineralisation and ossification process is probably something for another thread.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
Depends on your punching technique.
If you punch a lot using a vertical fist (called a 'sun' fist in Chinese martial arts as the fist resembles the Chinese character for the sun 日), then contact with the last two knuckles is preferable due to body alignment and how the punch is thrown (usually from the elbow and along the 'centre line', but I can only say for the style I've studied).
If you punch a lot with the more regular horizontal fist, then the index and middle finger knuckles are better for the same reasons.
I punch using the vertical fist, and I've always been taught, and experienced, that contact with the first two knuckles is preferable, due to both alignment with the elbow and to avoid a boxer's fracture.
I'm not really sure how you could or would use the last two knuckles to achieve any sort of useful alignment.
As for comparisons with the horizontal fist, there is a question as to whether that is intended as a "safety punch" to prevent proper alignment of the knuckles with the solar plexus and other targets.
From that, there are questions as to the differences between the alignment at the start of the movement and impact, during the impact, and at the end of the impact. a "vertical" punch might be intended to impact at a 10-20 angle off of vertical for best fit under the rib cage for strikes to the heart and liver as well as the solar plexus, while the "horizontal" punch represents the final position after a strike to other muscle groups that began vertical but twisted on impact to aggravate the damage to the muscle.
And then of course there are issues regarding the difference between bare hand strikes and covered (with boxing gloves or the like) strikes. Those pads are to protect the striking hand, not the target, typically the face. With bare handed strikes, the face tends to be a terrible target because of the structure of the skull. Even a "proper" punch is liable to result in a broken hand. Conversely, strikes to the rib cage, particularly at muscle/cartilage attachment points, generally do less damage to the striking hand.
Quote:
The same way you condition any part of your body, painfully.
This.
Big time.
Due to damage to my wrists I avoid punching as much as possible. Despite that, I still have considerable visible scarring on the knuckles of the index and middle finger of both hands.
For other strikes, I did considerable conditioning of my finger tips, palm heels, and back of my wrist. (The last of which likely contributed to the wrist damage making punching less of an option for me.) I hit bags, pads, wood, drywall, and eventually even cinderblocks with finger tips.
I also conditioned my shins on heavy bags, including kicking the bottom of an old one with all the sand settled, and conditioning my big toe by striking up to drywall.
I will note though, that you must be EXTREMELY careful with such conditioning or the damage will eventually become debilitating.
All the macho factor of being able to clash shins with someone and watch them drop whimpering while you stand around smirking when you are in your 20s is really not worth all the limping when the air pressure changes too rapidly when you are in your 40s.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Hoosigander
Max_Killjoy is correct, a chariot would be around six feet wide. However, it is important to note that estimate is based on evidence from British and Continental Celtic chariots. The evidence for chariots in Ireland are mentions in literary and legal sources and some depictions on High Crosses. Unfortunately, no one has found chariots deposited in graves like in Britain and Continental Europe, there is some archaeological evidence in the form of linchpins, but nothing as extensive as elsewhere.
Spoiler: Ahenny Cross
Show
Some of the Irish roads seem to follow a pattern of complex, well built, well surveyed roads in Continental Europe which predate the Romans. Some of these are associated with "Celtic" culture but that is such a loose term that it's hard to realistically associate with much any more (it's out of favor with Academics). Anyway some kind of Celtic or proto-Celtic (Halstadt or before) culture seems to have been pretty good at making some good roads.
There were major 'road' (trails, portages etc.) systems crisscrossing Europe which also pre-date the Romans but which the Romans updated and built settlements along. Notably among these
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Via_Regia.png
The Via Regia
The Via Imperii
The Via Lusatia
The Amber Road
The Silk Road also connects with the Via Regia.
The medieval tends to be more elusive in this as in with all other things. It is very hard to generalize. Many contradictory things are going on at the same time. But I can say that in the Late Medieval they did have some fairly sophisticated roads not necessarily inferior to what the Romans built. The Romans built roads of course for different purposes and with different techniques. The Romans for example relied heavily on slave labor whereas in the Late Medieval they relied much more on machines and skilled labor. The Roman roads were for moving large infantry formations (Legions) from one end of the Empire to the other, and they tended to be incredibly, almost pathologically strait. Medieval roads were more for trade though of course armies used them too. They tended more to follow the natural curvature of the terrain.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...-Viaregia1.jpg
This is supposed to be a section of the old Via Regia
In the Holy Roman Empire there were a series of 'roads' (some of them were probably recognizable to us as roads, others more like trails, portages, traces etc.) which were called Reichsstraßen. Imperial streets is I think the literal translation. These had a special legal status as in robbing somebody on the Imperial road could get you in extra trouble, and certain types of other violent or destructive activities were more severely punished if they occurred on the Imperial roads. Similar rules were in effect in various countries for "Royal roads" or streets.
However in the Late Medieval period the most well maintained, built and surveyed roads were not the Royal or Imperial ones necessarily, but were the ones in the more built-up, urbanized areas. For example, the Old Salt Route which was actually part of the Via Imperii I think, started out as a simple trail or trace but was eventually built into a nice road by Lubeck and Hamburg. It was used for carting salt and needed to be in good repair and relatively immune to weather. I believe this section is the actual old medieval paved road:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...eitenfelde.jpg
Road systems in Northern Italy, Flanders, and around other smaller clusters of powerful or wealthy towns (for example in Upper Lusatia where a handful of towns formed the Lusatian League) tended to be well maintained. However in the middle ages for a variety of reasons, especially the fairly brisk trade of all kinds of bulk commodities and finished goods, they liked to move things by ship, boat or barge quite a bit. They made an incredible network of canals all over Europe. These again, started out mostly in the more urbanized areas. For example between Lubeck and Hamburg (and Luneburg and some other towns) the 7 mile Stecknitz Canal, finished in 1390, was one of the first large man-made canals made in Europe. Apparently they were moving about 30,000 tons of salt per year down that canal in the 15th Century, along with a lot of other cargo (and if necessary, troops and stuff like guns).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stecknitz_Canal
Today there is an incredible network of these canals linking almost every river in Europe. Water was (and generally, still is I believe, even compared to rail) a much more energy efficient way to move heavy goods, and often in medieval times, a safer way to travel partly because you could carry lots of heavy guns with you.
Medieval road systems and other infrastructure like bridges, tunnels and passes, were sometimes paid for by tolls, sometimes paid by a prince but most often by the nearby towns who wanted them in place and well-maintained for their own commercial and military benefits. Roads which were part of or along the major trade routes like the Via Regia or the Amber Road were more likely to be better maintained by the local municipalities because they were usually steady sources of income.
One other feature of medieval roads in the more organized areas, is that many of them were used by postal systems, kind of like pony express systems. The original coach, the kind of personnel carriage you see portrayed so often in period films set in the 17th or 18th Century, got it's name from a town in Hungary which was one of the pony express postal stations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coach_(carriage)#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carriage#Coach
Of course the medieval period being complicated, there were also many areas with almost no improved roads at all.
G
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
This is one of the locks from the canal I mentioned, apparently (according to the Wiki) it's the original medieval lock. Gives you an idea how sophisticated they were (though the canal was quite shallow, only deep enough for fairly small barges)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lmschleuse.jpg
The Flemish and the Dutch were also famously very good at making tons of canals. Venice is also known for this...
Some of the canals in Northern Europe even have shade trees planted the whole way...
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
A model of that same lock, the Palmschleuse at Lauenburg, meant to show what it looked like circa 1430
http://img.webme.com/pic/p/peters-bi...auenbg-001.jpg
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Tiktakkat
I punch using the vertical fist, and I've always been taught, and experienced, that contact with the first two knuckles is preferable, due to both alignment with the elbow and to avoid a boxer's fracture.
I'm not really sure how you could or would use the last two knuckles to achieve any sort of useful alignment.
Could I ask what style you've trained in? I'm quite short and the relevant martial arts style I trained in (Southern Mantis) is basically designed for my height and body shape, so I use the vertical fist for punching upwards or to normal height on the average westerner :smalltongue:.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Is there really much advantage to holding a knife with an icepick grip? Been messing around with a kitchen knife and moving boxes (yes, I know, not a scientific study or a combat weapon), and holding it blade down doesn't seem to give an increase in power, and it's harder to control where the blade goes. I feel like I can stab faster and closer to where I want just holding the blade up and stabbing forward. Does this match combat trained people's experience with knives?
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roxxy
Is there really much advantage to holding a knife with an icepick grip? Been messing around with a kitchen knife and moving boxes (yes, I know, not a scientific study or a combat weapon), and holding it blade down doesn't seem to give an increase in power, and it's harder to control where the blade goes. I feel like I can stab faster and closer to where I want just holding the blade up and stabbing forward. Does this match combat trained people's experience with knives?
From what I've read, that "reverse grip" is used more for certain slashing techniques, and you'd really only stab down like that when you had an opponent helpless, and then you'd probably put your off hand on the back of our main hand to add extra control and power.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Galloglaich
Read up on the US Army in Vietnam during the 70's. That is about as bad as it gets. Pretty interesting too.
The Soviet Army in Afghanistan might be another good example, but the material on it's a bit thinner on the ground. Or at least, you have to look harder to find it in English.
(For example, I've heard anecdotes of Soviet officers literally dueling each other over women with grenades, but those are understandably difficult to corroborate.)
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brother Oni
Could I ask what style you've trained in? I'm quite short and the relevant martial arts style I trained in (Southern Mantis) is basically designed for my height and body shape, so I use the vertical fist for punching upwards or to normal height on the average westerner :smalltongue:.
Isshin Ryu, an Okinawan system that is predominantly Shorin with a bit of Goju.
It is generally a punching/kicking range system, but because I'm on the short side (5'8") and squat (180-210 at prime fighting weight), I use it more at punching/grappling range, and do a lot more finger strikes instead of punches.
One thing I stress when teaching that is rather "heretical" (at least in my area) when discussing kata "bunkai" is that the difference in height is HIGHLY relevant to the technique used. A target that requires a "vertical" punch on someone of the same height will require an uppercut on someone taller and a down "horizontal" punch on someone smaller.
Well, unless you really like breaking your hand or flailing ineffectively. :smallbiggrin:
That is one of many reasons why I phrase answers to most questions about techniques as "generally" - there are too many variables for absolute universal answers to be valid.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roxxy
Is there really much advantage to holding a knife with an icepick grip? Been messing around with a kitchen knife and moving boxes (yes, I know, not a scientific study or a combat weapon), and holding it blade down doesn't seem to give an increase in power, and it's harder to control where the blade goes. I feel like I can stab faster and closer to where I want just holding the blade up and stabbing forward. Does this match combat trained people's experience with knives?
It depends on the knife and the target.
If you need to penetrate mail or plate armor, or a skull, the ice pick grip, sometimes referred to as the rondel grip from the weapon of that name, is essential. Which is pretty much why rondel's were constructed the way they were, and why the grip is named for it.
If you need to cut a throat or gut someone in street clothes, the natural or sword grip is going to be more effective.
The thing is, a rondel is almost a spike, and slashing with it is nearly useless. So you pretty much MUST use an ice pick grip with one.
Conversely, something like a machete is just a cleaver, and stabbing with it is significantly less effective. So you pretty much MUST use a natural grip with it.
Of course then you get things like a bowie knife which can hack AND slash with great force, so you may want to switch back and forth depending on what you are doing at a particular moment.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Would you ever want to slash with a knife, though, barring slitting a throat or the use of a cleaver like a kukri? I've been of the impression that yoj stab in a knife fight, and I feel like the sword grip is a lot easier to control with better reach.
-
Re: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXI
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Roxxy
Would you ever want to slash with a knife, though, barring slitting a throat or the use of a cleaver like a kukri? I've been of the impression that yoj stab in a knife fight, and I feel like the sword grip is a lot easier to control with better reach.
As with all things, it depends on a lot.
First, you need the right knife. Some knives don't slash well at all. And you need the right target. If you are fighting, not just walking up and shanking an unsuspecting guy, you might slash at his arms to disable his knife hand or stop him from grabbing you. His hands and arms are probably closer to you that his body, so you may not be able to stab him until you get past the arms, which might be holding a weapon, so trying to disable them first is something you might do.
A slash (with a big enough knife) is more likely to sever muscle or tendons and blood vessels than a stab, so on an arm, it's more likely to be disabling. It's less likely to reach organs if you slash at the body than if you stab.
All that said, people can take a lot of stabbing. There are lots of accounts of people being stabbed a ton of times before falling over, even if the wounds eventually prove fatal. Slashing the guy's weapon hand first might not be an awful idea.