Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. VI

[Galloglaich]

In a 9th Century campaign, you would not have two handed or bastard swords, polearms (with a few exceptions), plate armor, or rapiers or sideswords as mentioned.

I'll take a stab at what arms and armor would break down like around the world, something like this:

Western Europe
Heavy Armor: Mail hauberks (pretty rare) or more commonly byrnies (short sleeved shirts) with helms and light textile armor underneath.
Light Armor: Aketons (quilted textile armor) with helms
Shields center grip, kyte type or Viking roundshield type, or small (targe) type. Shields would be very common
Main weapon: Spear
Sidearm: Spatha type or counterweighted 'viking type' single handed swords, battle axes (typicaly single handed, the two-handed 'huskarl' type came a little later though there may be some around), Sax (long knife), Short Sword, light mace, strait dagger
Missile weapons (in order of ubiquity): Spear, javelin, Fransisca (Throwing axe), 'Angon' (an armor-piercing javelin based on the Roman pilum), light crossbow (uncommon), sling (rare),longbow (very rare except in certain areas like Wales and some parts of Scandinavia)

Byzantium
Heavy Armor: Klibanion, lamellar over mail (would be perhaps roughly equivalent to "splint mail" in most RPGs)
Main Weapon: Spear
Sidearm: Spatha type sword, light mace, dagger
Missile weapons: Recurve bow, light crossbow, gastrophetes (a type of heavy crossbow), , plumbata (a sort of super lawn dart), javelins
Special: Greek fire including both greek-fire flamethrower (usually mounted on warships) and naptha hand-grenades, quicklime, "artillery" (small portable siege engines)

Middle East
Heavy Armor: Mail, Lamellar, Scale
Light Armor: Quilted textile armor
Shields: Kyte type shield
Main Weapon: Recurve bow, spear
Sidearm; Spatha type sword, battle axe, war-hammer, or Chinese dao type saber (much more rare), jambiya type curved dagger.
Special: Greek fire including naptha hand-grenades similar to molatov cocktails

Central / East Asia
Heavy Armor: Lamelar, Scale
Light Armor: Quilted textile armor
Shields: Small buckler type shields (very common), roundshields (for infantry)
Main Weapon: Recurve bows, spear
Sidearm: Chinese Dao type short Saber, light mace, dagger
Other Missiles: Javelins, thrown light mace
Special: Lasso, Noisemakers, Bee hives,

Eastern Europeans (a mix of Scandinavians, Balts, Finns and Slavs) would have a mix of Western and Eastern type weapons and armor, plus heavy maces.

I didn't include Japanese, Persian or South-Asian kit.

Armor in general would be fairly rare in this period, though the western cavalry and heavy infantry would have more 'heavy' armor generally speaking than in the other parts of the world.

G.

[Matthew]

I
For a good chunk of history professional armies didn't exist. The monarch might have some guard units but that was usually about it. If war needed to be waged the armies had to be raised, and when the war ended those armies would be disbanded. So I would suspect that well trained soldiers (commoners) would be a rarity. Except maybe towards the Renaissance when you start to see more mercenaries like the Condotierri and Landsknechts. Then, I would imagine that you would see more "veterans" who know more of the nuances to pole-arm fighting, had more practice with swords, etc. But the majority of soldiers would probably still be some adventurers with no prior training that decided to join a mercenary company, if not levies or civic militias. While I'm sure the city militias were better trained than rural levies, I would be surprised if they had a significant amount of advance training in the more esoteric martial arts.

For the medieval period in particular it has been common in the past to start talking about really "professional" armies coming into being at the end of the thirteenth century, in particular the "household" of Edward I being cited. In fact, though, it is possible to trace the Anglo-Norman household as the "core" of the military right back to its inception in the eleventh century, with its size fluctuating depending on the fortunes of the king, and the organisation reflected in the households of his vassals. Possibly most surprising, and at the heart of J. O. Prestwich's important article "The Military Household of the Norman Kings" are the 1,000 Flemish knights contracted as mercenaries by Henry I in 1101 from the Count of Flanders.

As with most things military, and as I am sure you are aware, money and necessity brings increased professionalism, so you begin to see the formation of professional military forces whenever they can be systematically raised and retained for protracted periods, which happens sporadically on various scales all through history.

Interesting anecdotes, but I would suggest this type of limitation is not necessarily the rule. The Mongols and the Huns, among others, were apparently able to achieve remarkable Strategic, Operational, and Tactical mobility ... and so did some of their opponents in Europe and other places. As with so many questions of military history, I think this is somewhat a matter of a given time and place.

Indeed, though, it has been occasionally pointed out that their marching speeds were not as remarkable as sometimes made out. It was their organisation and scale that was impressive.

A lot of games organize them that way, but I don't agree with this approach - I think blunt crushing weapons like maces are used differently than cutting weapons like axes, also axes, war hammers and picks have built-in to their shape the ability to hook, which is an important difference in how you actually use them. You can hook shield rims, weapons, hook peoples hands and knees and pull people off their feet etc. But this is left out of most RPG systems so it doesn't matter in most games.

My view of this subject is that people initially tend to apply what they have learned with one weapon to another, and then gradually learn the nuances of the new. So somebody who knows how to use a mace would likely apply the lessons he had learned to an axe and meet with more success than if given a spear, or whatever. I agree, though, axes, picks, hammers, maces, and so on all have important differences that must be mastered to achieve their full potential.

The couched lance was better for armour-piercing. It let you put the whole weight of your body into a thrust, instead of just your arm.

I have access to some anecdotes from European and Arab sources on this, but no time to dig them out right this moment.

Ah, I think I know the anecdotes you are referring to; I know Anna Komena comments on the couched lance technique, and I am pretty certain that the Memoirs of Usamah Ibn-Munqidh also mentions it. Definitely worth posting both of those. Although the Great Stirrup Controversy has rightly marginalised the impact of the stirrup on the development of feudalism, it is noticeable that the "couched" technique appeared at around the same time as its introduction, and were uniquely placed to allow the rider to "rise" in his stirrups when delivering the charge. I think that this probably has a lot to do with why the couched technique appeared when it did.

My recollection of undergrad Roman history basically said it was the Anarchy that destroyed Roman military discipline. After that there was no way that infantry would be willing to perform 20 mile a day marches, and cavalry came to the fore (they also switched to a defense in depth scheme).

Unfortunately, we just do not really know what actually caused (or exactly when) Roman military discipline reached the breaking point. Many causes have been suggested, such as exemption from military service for the inner provinces, extension of universal citizenship, internal religious problems, population decimating plagues, and so on and so forth. It does seem likely that discipline went into decline sometime in the second century AD, and, though arrested on numerous occasions, never really recovered to levels achieved in the first century.

No, there were no rules on the battlefield, just money and self interest. If you had money, it may have been worth more to ransom you. If you didn't, it was cheaper to kill you. Knights tended to ransom each other and kill common soldiers, but it was by no means universal.

That depended a great deal on who you were and who captured you. If you were a King or a very rich or well connected Aristocrat you may be kept in a "Ritz Calrton" setting. As often as not the prisoner would be kept in wretched conditions in a dungeon which could often prove fatal, where you may be kept for anywhere from a few months to years or decades.

Also conditions of ransom varied a great deal from place to place. The Swiss famously refused to ransom or parole any prisoners, they killed everybody they could catch who took up arms against them regardless of rank. During the Italian wars the Condottieri would typically slay French or Spanish troops regardless of rank, because the French and Spanish themselves would not ransom Italian common soldiers. As a result several French armies in particular were slaughtered almost to the last man after failed campaigns in Italy. By contrast Italian soldiers would typically ransom Italian noblemen and often disarm and 'parole' (release) common Italian troops, many of whom may have been their own cousins.

During the high Middle Ages there was a culture of Chivalry which took place particularly in Tournaments, where capture and ransom would be carried out in a very 'gentlemanly' manner, and in certain battles such as during the 100 years war, where the ransom of knights and nobility became something of an industry, rather similar to the way the Somali pirates ransom hostages today. Many great fortunes in England were founded by common yeoman archers who captured French lords at battles like Crecy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. But this was hardly universal, it depended very much on the 'theater' where the fighting was taking place and how bad the blood was etc. If you were captured by someone who didn't like you or your people you were just as likely to be killed as ransomed, regardless of your rank.

There's also the factor that while ransoms were asked for, they weren't always paid. There are several documented accounts of the family back home going 'We're better off without *him*' and ignoring the ransom request. The classic fictional example being the Robin Hood version of 'Bad King' John's response to King Richard's ransom (the actual historical version of these events are *wildly* different from the fictional version, but it's still a good example as most people will recognize it. ) Also, it doesn't take too many ransoms to begar someone, so if you're in the habit of getting captured...

Exactly so. And I will add that in Scandinavia the culture of ransoming was almost non-existent, whilst in the Levant it seems that vast numbers of men of all status were frequently captured and ransomed, it being seen as a "good work" for somebody to ransom Christian prisoners from their Muslim captors. Joinville provides a particularly interesting anecdote about marching to receive prisoners near Ascalon after the disastrous defeat in Egypt.

It's actually much the same with many if not most missile weapons before that. English longbow archers did most of their lethal shooting at far, far beyond the range at which one could aim at (let alone hit) an individual human - they practised shooting at area targets in the form of large sheets 20' or more wide laid on the ground.

Similar with javelins. Javelins were thrown in volleys because it's fairly easy to catch an individual javelin. A whole cloud of them on the other hand, very dangerous.

I do wonder how much real damage was done at a great distance. Military archery was definitely all about volume and "aiming" seems to have not been much of a consideration in that regard, but it is a complicated question as to what range they really were effective at versus what sorts of targets. It must have been a really taxing decision for commanders on the ground.

Check out this crazy Renaissance era helmet

Spoiler

Show

Yikes! That is one ugly mug! I should add to the helmet discussion that there is some controversy over the Roman cavalry masks and whether they were anything more than parade pieces. I suspect that is true of a lot of helmets with masks, though, that is to say they are more about image than protection.

Actually, the Roman javelin bended upon impact.
One of the reason Romans threw pila at all was because it would stuck in an enemy's shield, bend and then making said shield unwieldy and heavy, forcing the warrior to drop it or to be impeded. Both results made the warrior a fair game for the well-armored legionnaire. The "barbarians threw javelin back at us" simply means they pick it up once on the ground (or in a dead comrade...)

This is an oft-repeat myth. The pilum is clearly designed to kill. What it does as a by product of being an extremely effective armour piercing weapon is encumber the shields of the enemy. Being designed to bend on impact by the first century BC it became an increasing annoyance. However, this is very much the secondary function (or happy by product) of a deadly weapon. Likely the propensity of shields to catch thrown spears is where the Old English "spear net" appellation comes for shields.

Me and a group of friends are working on our own fantasy setting, modelled after Europe and the near east around the 9th century. We decided some time ago back that we wanted to use technology that suited the period and not mix and match stuff from the late middle ages and the early.

So I was wondering, what types of weapons and armour would be suitable and which ones should we try to avoid?

Hard question. A lot of fairly sophisticated technology would have been available in the near east by way of Byzantium, most elusively some sort of flame throwing device and possibly hand held incendiaries of a naphtha type. Basically, you can run the gamut of early medieval weaponry, including various sorts of axes, maces, and hammers - though not as common as they later seem to have become. Plate armour is pretty much out, as would be most pole-arms as "common military" weapons, knightly lances, and long bows, though that might depend on military organisation and economy.

A lot depends on exactly what you are going for. Once you know what military forces are in the area you will probably have a good idea of what weapons and armour are most common.

[Galloglaich]

This is an oft-repeat myth. The pilum is clearly designed to kill. What it does as a by product of being an extremely effective armour piercing weapon is encumber the shields of the enemy. Being designed to bend on impact by the first century BC it became an increasing annoyance. However, this is very much the secondary function (or happy by product) of a deadly weapon. Likely the propensity of shields to catch thrown spears is where the Old English "spear net" appellation comes for shields.

Very good point... that is one of those myths which seems to always come back. Pilums were designed to 'break' so they couldn't be thrown back and would encumber shields, but first and foremost they were armor piercing weapons. Modern tests indicates how effective they were as such (very).

G.

[Dervag]

With respect to polearms in the 9th century: As Matthew alluded to, a lot would depend on demand. Plate armor required technical advances in armor-making that hadn't occured yet, but the lack of polearms was mostly social and due to the lack of suitable infantry formations; you don't really need to do anything all that exotic to make a halberd if you already know how to make spears and axes.

If civilization is regularly threatened by big ferocious monsters as well as by rival human(oids), then polearms will be more popular as a way of cancelling out the reach advantage.

[Fhaolan]

Just how protective was mail, anyway? Can it stop broadhead or bodkin arrows fired from a warbow with a 150 pound draw weight? A slicing attack from a light curved sword? A heavy two handed chop of a bardiche, pollaxe or voulge? A thrust from a pike? A swing of a flanged mace, flail or warhammer?

No, Yes, No, possibly, No.

Maille can't help you much against impact. All it's really good for is cuts, and a limited amount against chops and stabs by spreading the impact a bit, basically turning the edged attack into a blunt-force attack. Usually you've got padded or quilted cloth or something similar underneath to spread impacts further.

As long as the force of the blow against you would break bones/kill, it still will. It just reduces or eliminates penetration, providing the blow isn't geared specifically for penetrating maille. Bodkin arrows and bodkin stilletos, for instance, can be small enough to go right through some rings, or spread the rings so that the attack can get through.

It's the same basic principle as modern kevlar vests and the like. Its still a bad thing to get shot even when wearing a vest, because you still get the full impact of the bullet. It's spread over a somewhat larger area so that it reduces the penetration, but a good chunk of the power still transmits through. People have died from being shot even when the bullet hit the vest, because the *impact* killed them despite there being no effective penetration.

[fusilier]

Unfortunately, we just do not really know what actually caused (or exactly when) Roman military discipline reached the breaking point. Many causes have been suggested, such as exemption from military service for the inner provinces, extension of universal citizenship, internal religious problems, population decimating plagues, and so on and so forth. It does seem likely that discipline went into decline sometime in the second century AD, and, though arrested on numerous occasions, never really recovered to levels achieved in the first century.

I don't disagree with you, and, now that you mention it, I may remember that the Roman military was starting to show cracks even before the Anarchy (I'm used to calling it just "the Anarchy", although wikipedia prefers the "Crisis of the 3rd Century"). The Anarchy went on for a long time (wikipedia says 50 years, again I thought it was longer -- probably depends upon who you ask). So it's not really a "point" in history. Anyway, what I remember is that after the Anarchy there was no going back to the "good old days" for the Roman military. The army was one of the casualties of the Anarchy, and while it may not have been a simple turning point, the decline was irreversible after then. -- I should really find my notes for that class.

[fusilier]

No, Yes, No, possibly, No.

Maille can't help you much against impact. All it's really good for is cuts, and a limited amount against chops and stabs by spreading the impact a bit, basically turning the edged attack into a blunt-force attack. Usually you've got padded or quilted cloth or something similar underneath to spread impacts further.

Pike thrusts are performed with the legs, and not the arms. The way a pike is held (at least during the late Renaissance), means that the arms are primarily used to "aim" the pike. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anyway, I've heard that when the Japanese went up against Chinese cavalry during one of the 16th century invasions of Korea, they found their katanas to be useless against the heavy mail armor that the Chinese wore.

[Mike_G]

The KRISS V is a wonderful theoretical weapon. However, it has a small ammunition capacity for a submachinegun, and a short barrel. And while it does redirect some of the forces down, it still has recoil to the rear, which isn't going to change unless the bullets come out somewhere other than the front of the gun.

The Thompson was significantly heavier, but this along with a muzzle brake reduces the practical recoil significantly. It's also fairly accurate and extremely reliable. It also has the advantage of massive testing on it's side, and it's passed admirably.

The KRISS may very well be the superior gun overall, but it's not a black and white situation.

Plus, the Thompson existed during the era of the Banzai charge, and was in the arsenal of Us, UK and Australians who were likely to need to repulse one.

The Tommy gun is a nice weapon. It's heavy, but all WWII era guns are, compared to more modern ones. It throws a nice heavy round, it's accurate enough in a short burst, and it feels good fired from the shoulder. In a close quarters fight in concealing terrain or bad visibility, it's a very good choice.

[Galloglaich]

Thompsons are very nice guns IMO. Expensive these days, but a very nice weapon. Hard to believe you used to be able to get one from the Sears catalog for $30.

I fired a Thompson full auto once at a gun store in Las Vegas where you can rent them. After that I could understand why it's so heavy. Most controllable full auto weapon I ever shot that wasn't on a tripod. Much easier to hold down than an M-16 which doesn't kick at all but will rise and move all around at 'rock and roll'.

I think in the hands of a trained / skilled gunner, like some of Al Capones hit men in the 20's, this was one of the most effective full auto weapons, due to the large magazine capacity, 'stopping power' (I know an overused term but I think applicable) accuracy at short to medium range and full auto controlability in relatively short bursts.

It's interesting that the Russians seem to have gone back to heavy subsonic calibers with the excellent new weapons they made for their new 9 x 39 mm caliber, and now the Americans have followed suit with the .458 retrofit for the M-16 / M-4.

G.

[Crow]

I have an opportunity to pick up a mini-14 from a buddy of mine, and was wondering how reliable they are? I've had to use fullsize m14's many times when I was in the military, and never really had any issues with them other than an occasional feed issue, but it is still a different weapon, and I just wanted to get some outside input.

I was wanting to pick it up as a "survival rifle" of sorts. Something that I can stash away and that would require less maintainence than an AR-15 or their variants. I live in California so my sources of rifles are severely limited, and plus the price is right on this thing, so I was definitly considering picking it up.

[Fhaolan]

Pike thrusts are performed with the legs, and not the arms. The way a pike is held (at least during the late Renaissance), means that the arms are primarily used to "aim" the pike. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Depends on the pike and the formation the pike wielder is in. Some had pikes large and heavy enough that the user doesn't thrust at all. He just stands still and takes the impact.

Anyway, I've heard that when the Japanese went up against Chinese cavalry during one of the 16th century invasions of Korea, they found their katanas to be useless against the heavy mail armor that the Chinese wore.

Yep, because katanas are mostly cut-based weapons, with the edge being drawn along the target. While they can get quite good penetration that way it's highly dependant on the slicing motion, which maille is exceptionally good at counteracting.

[Galloglaich]

I have an opportunity to pick up a mini-14 from a buddy of mine, and was wondering how reliable they are? I've had to use fullsize m14's many times when I was in the military, and never really had any issues with them other than an occasional feed issue, but it is still a different weapon, and I just wanted to get some outside input.

I was wanting to pick it up as a "survival rifle" of sorts. Something that I can stash away and that would require less maintainence than an AR-15 or their variants. I live in California so my sources of rifles are severely limited, and plus the price is right on this thing, so I was definitly considering picking it up.

I think it's a good bet, doesn't have the same gas system issue as the Ar-15 family and not as delicate, though also not quite as accurate. But if I were you I'd go check on a gun-forum.

One other nice thing about Mini 14s is there are a ton of after market accessories.

G.

[Galloglaich]

On Mail armor, from tests I've seen, Mail is almost impossible to cut through and I don't think (though this is hotly debated) you would be that hurt underneath from most hand weapons like swords, axes etc. since most hand weapons are not that heavy like crow-bars (or their equivalent farm-tools). I spar with blunt steel swords all the time without much protection and they don't break my bones.

Swords can't pierce mail easily with their points either if the mail is worn with a gambeson underneath, though the very pointy (Oakeshott type XV etc.) do better.

Mail and a gambeson is also actually pretty good protection against arrows too. This is another 'internet fault line' and I'm not going to wade into that, but most of the tests I've seen with relatively realistic riveted mail (not thin galvanized stuff) show powerful bows with armor-piercing arrows piercing through mail at very close range (under 10'-15') but not from much further out than that, and putting a gambeson over the mail (as was done in period) seems make the target almost invulnerable.

On the other hand, a really powerful bow like a heavy Arbalest (crossbow) or a real English Warbow at the maximum estimated strength, or the heaviest known examples of a Mongol Recurve Composite can probably punch through mail even at medium range, and we have seen the armor piercing points on pole-axes and war-hammers can go right through mail with no problems.

Essentially what Fhaolan said upthread is pretty accurate, Mail is good protection against anything but armor piercing weapons (like two-handed poll-hammers and very heavy Composite bows). Two other powerful armor-piercing weapons that you don't see in RpGs (as such) are daggers and spears.

But I would lean a little more on the side of mail armor being really good protection, with the caveat that it's used as historically with padding underneath.

An interesting (though completely amateur) vid, you can see the dramatic difference in the effectiveness of (in this case, really cheap galvanized) Mail with and without padding underneath.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGu4b...eature=related

G.

[Fhaolan]

Essentially what Fhaolan said upthread is pretty accurate, Mail is good protection against anything but armor piercing weapons (like two-handed poll-hammers and very heavy Composite bows). Two other powerful armor-piercing weapons that you don't see in RpGs (as such) are daggers and spears.

But I would lean a little more on the side of mail armor being really good protection, with the caveat that it's used as historically with padding underneath.

Yeah, the weapons being presented as part of the question were mostly the *really* heavy two-handed choppers like pollaxes, bardiches, and so on. And while the blows from axes, maces, and the like (the one-handed crushers/choppers), might not *kill* you, they definately will hurt if you take a full-on blow. Hurt a lot. Part of wearing armour of any kind is trying *not* to take that straight-on blow. You want the blow to deflect off the armour, which means hitting you at angles. Anyone who just stands there and lets the opponent wail on them isn't going to do very well very rapidly.

[Galloglaich]

Agreed, and I think a mace is particularly effective against armor. That is the purpose of a mace really.... if you think about it I suspect it's why kings carry maces (a kings sceptor is really a mace).

http://vamsikarra.files.wordpress.co...lord-visnu.jpg

G.

[Subotei]

It's interesting that the Russians seem to have gone back to heavy subsonic calibers with the excellent new weapons they made for their new 9 x 39 mm caliber, and now the Americans have followed suit with the .458 retrofit for the M-16 / M-4.G.

The British are introducing the LM7 semi-automatic 7.62 mm x 51 mm 'sharpshooter' for marksmen, as the 5.56 mm doesn't have the stopping power at ranges needed in Afghanistan. Contacts tend to be either very close or out at 500-900m - beyond effective range for 5.56 mm. Interesting how things swing back and forth. Horses for courses I guess.

[lesser_minion]

The British are introducing the LM7 semi-automatic 7.62 mm x 51 mm 'sharpshooter' for marksmen, as the 5.56 mm doesn't have the stopping power at ranges needed in Afghanistan. Contacts tend to be either very close or out at 500-900m - beyond effective range for 5.56 mm. Interesting how things swing back and forth. Horses for courses I guess.

Interesting.

I was under the impression that marksmen would already be using a 7.62mm x51 weapon, even if it was just a modified World War II Lee Enfield (there is something slightly more modern than that, but I forget the name).

The switch from bolt action is also an interesting move.

[Eldan]

A question from something I've seen on a movie...
Assuming a soldier, ca world war II, wore a backpack of stiff-looking, water-proof cloth, about 30cm thick, filled with more or less normal clothing, would that be able to stop a rifle bullet, or would it penetrate that?

[Subotei]

Interesting.

I was under the impression that marksmen would already be using a 7.62mm x51 weapon, even if it was just a modified World War II Lee Enfield (there is something slightly more modern than that, but I forget the name).

The switch from bolt action is also an interesting move.

From what I hear this is not meant for specialist snipers - they'll still have their hi spec sniper rifles.

[Twilight Jack]

A question from something I've seen on a movie...
Assuming a soldier, ca world war II, wore a backpack of stiff-looking, water-proof cloth, about 30cm thick, filled with more or less normal clothing, would that be able to stop a rifle bullet, or would it penetrate that?

It could impair a handgun round, mattering on the caliber and the velocity of the round, as well as the tensile strength of the cloth involved. You'd still have a nasty injury on your hands, but it would probably save your life.

A rifle, though, fires a much thinner and sharper bullet at much higher velocity. Most rifle rounds punch through a standard kevlar vest without a hiccup, unless the thing's got a class IV trauma plate inserted. I couldn't imagine that a backpack of waterproofed canvas is going to do much, no matter how much clothing is stuffed inside. Maybe if you filled the backpack with concrete. . .

[Eldan]

Yeah, that's what I assumed as well. Hollywood logic, then.

[Theodoric]

Interesting.

I was under the impression that marksmen would already be using a 7.62mm x51 weapon, even if it was just a modified World War II Lee Enfield (there is something slightly more modern than that, but I forget the name).

The switch from bolt action is also an interesting move.

I think you're confusing Designated Marksmen with the good old snipers. Designated Marksman are a concept that originated amongst the Russians, that consisted of every squad including a guy with a slightly higher-powered, longer-ranged rifle. The past couple of years, there has been a real scramble for militaries to adopt this concept, with many recent weapons being purposefully designed to fill this role.

It's kind of silly, really. The Soviets/Russians (and associated Warschaw Pact countries) have employed this kind of soldier since the early 60's, and only recently has everybody else seen the light. Only Israel and some special forces have been using it too since before 2000.

[Galloglaich]

It could impair a handgun round, mattering on the caliber and the velocity of the round, as well as the tensile strength of the cloth involved. You'd still have a nasty injury on your hands, but it would probably save your life.

A rifle, though, fires a much thinner and sharper bullet at much higher velocity. Most rifle rounds punch through a standard kevlar vest without a hiccup, unless the thing's got a class IV trauma plate inserted. I couldn't imagine that a backpack of waterproofed canvas is going to do much, no matter how much clothing is stuffed inside. Maybe if you filled the backpack with concrete. . .

Or maybe if you had an e-tool in there...

G.

[Dervag]

I don't disagree with you, and, now that you mention it, I may remember that the Roman military was starting to show cracks even before the Anarchy (I'm used to calling it just "the Anarchy", although wikipedia prefers the "Crisis of the 3rd Century"). The Anarchy went on for a long time (wikipedia says 50 years, again I thought it was longer -- probably depends upon who you ask). So it's not really a "point" in history. Anyway, what I remember is that after the Anarchy there was no going back to the "good old days" for the Roman military. The army was one of the casualties of the Anarchy, and while it may not have been a simple turning point, the decline was irreversible after then. -- I should really find my notes for that class.

I suspect that this is a bit of an oversimplification; you might be better advised to read the books for that class.

Among other things, the Romans rallied after that and had some quite effective armies (witness Julian's* campaigns in the mid-300s)

*Also known as Julian the Apostate for being the last (one of the last?) Roman emperor to adhere to and promote the worship of the Greco-Roman gods, some fifty years after the empire had formally gone over to Christianity. Interesting guy.

The British are introducing the LM7 semi-automatic 7.62 mm x 51 mm 'sharpshooter' for marksmen, as the 5.56 mm doesn't have the stopping power at ranges needed in Afghanistan. Contacts tend to be either very close or out at 500-900m - beyond effective range for 5.56 mm. Interesting how things swing back and forth. Horses for courses I guess.

Also interesting when you compare this to the kind of cartridges they used to use back in the day... when one of the most common places for the British Army to wind up fighting in was Afghanistan.

It could impair a handgun round, mattering on the caliber and the velocity of the round, as well as the tensile strength of the cloth involved. You'd still have a nasty injury on your hands, but it would probably save your life.

A rifle, though, fires a much thinner and sharper bullet at much higher velocity. Most rifle rounds punch through a standard kevlar vest without a hiccup, unless the thing's got a class IV trauma plate inserted. I couldn't imagine that a backpack of waterproofed canvas is going to do much, no matter how much clothing is stuffed inside. Maybe if you filled the backpack with concrete. . .

Realistically there should be a fair amount of stuff in there made of wood and iron, so it becomes a bit more plausible that the backpack could stop a bullet in that case, or start it tumbling so that it comes to a halt in short order even in low-density material. Stuffed with cloth, there's no chance, though.

I think you're confusing Designated Marksmen with the good old snipers. Designated Marksman are a concept that originated amongst the Russians, that consisted of every squad including a guy with a slightly higher-powered, longer-ranged rifle. The past couple of years, there has been a real scramble for militaries to adopt this concept, with many recent weapons being purposefully designed to fill this role.

It's kind of silly, really. The Soviets/Russians (and associated Warschaw Pact countries) have employed this kind of soldier since the early 60's, and only recently has everybody else seen the light. Only Israel and some special forces have been using it too since before 2000.

The Soviets were the first to go to "spray and pray" full automatic fire for their average front-line infantry, though, starting as early as World War II with the mass use of submachine guns on the front line. They needed the designated marksman to offset the long range inaccuracy of the rest of the unit.

The rest of the world kept flattering themselves that they could train their regular infantry to shoot accurately at long range with automatic rifles... with varying degrees of success.

[lesser_minion]

I think you're confusing Designated Marksmen with the good old snipers. Designated Marksman are a concept that originated amongst the Russians, that consisted of every squad including a guy with a slightly higher-powered, longer-ranged rifle. The past couple of years, there has been a real scramble for militaries to adopt this concept, with many recent weapons being purposefully designed to fill this role.

It's kind of silly, really. The Soviets/Russians (and associated Warschaw Pact countries) have employed this kind of soldier since the early 60's, and only recently has everybody else seen the light. Only Israel and some special forces have been using it too since before 2000.

Ah, OK.

In the UK, that was considered to be the entire purpose behind a light support weapon (as opposed to actually firing quickly) for a while, I think.

You can't exactly suppress a position with an L86, after all.

[Spamotron]

On firearms how were the very first ones used?

I understand that the early handcannons were in some respects fancy noismakers that were more dangerous to the user than the target and required the shooter to be a highly paid specialist to have any chance on not blowing themselves up.

What was the timespan or turning point between niche novelty to reliable mainstream weapon?

[Theodoric]

In the UK, that was considered to be the entire purpose behind a light support weapon (as opposed to actually firing quickly) for a while, I think.

You can't exactly suppress a position with an L86, after all.

Actually, it was initially meant as a fully automatic light support weapon; the Dutch Marines used a Diemaco-type thing (that looked really ugly IRL, I might add) in much the same way; the military figured out that it ofcourse, wouldn't really work, but with its heavy barrel it could operate as a stand-in DMR. Only two weeks ago, the British army adopted a dedicated DMR of its own.

[Spiryt]

On firearms how were the very first ones used?

I understand that the early handcannons were in some respects fancy noismakers that were more dangerous to the user than the target and required the shooter to be a highly paid specialist to have any chance on not blowing themselves up.

What was the timespan or turning point between niche novelty to reliable mainstream weapon?

Actualy, common hussite soldiers were using early handgonnes pretty commonly, and they weren't really highly paid specialists.

In fact, AFAIKN "decent" handgonne was usually cheaper than solid crossbow, and especially ammunition wa cheaper - good bolt is quite elaborate piece of work, while round lead ball is, well, just round lead ball. It's also easier to carry around.

Here the process of shooting from handgonne. It's not something nice to do in the middle of the battle, in this respect I would rather hav a crossbow. Generally, this site is very informative, check it.

And I won't believe those "more dangerous to user" thing, really. As you can see on the site, those guys are shooting them for fun just like that, and I don't believe that common XVth century guy would like to carry a suicide weapon. AFAIR, problems with getting a good shoot could be common, but nothing too drastic.

As for " time to mainstream weapon" - well, as mentioned, hussites were already using them commonly (as well as other primitive guns, in few modern firearm terms come from Czech). Closer to 1500, guns were getting better and more common, although this was certainly fluid process, archers with crossbows or sometimes bows were used along well into the XVI century.

[Spamotron]

Spiryt in the video he mentions the hangonne is 15th century. I thought the very earliest handheld firearms were 13th century. So of course it would be safer than the guns I was talking about it had 200 years of refinement.

[Galloglaich]

Actualy, common hussite soldiers were using early handgonnes pretty commonly, and they weren't really highly paid specialists.

In fact, AFAIKN "decent" handgonne was usually cheaper than solid crossbow, and especially ammunition wa cheaper - good bolt is quite elaborate piece of work, while round lead ball is, well, just round lead ball. It's also easier to carry around.

Here the process of shooting from handgonne. It's not something nice to do in the middle of the battle, in this respect I would rather hav a crossbow. Generally, this site is very informative, check it.

And I won't believe those "more dangerous to user" thing, really. As you can see on the site, those guys are shooting them for fun just like that, and I don't believe that common XVth century guy would like to carry a suicide weapon. AFAIR, problems with getting a good shoot could be common, but nothing too drastic.

As for " time to mainstream weapon" - well, as mentioned, hussites were already using them commonly (as well as other primitive guns, in few modern firearm terms come from Czech). Closer to 1500, guns were getting better and more common, although this was certainly fluid process, archers with crossbows or sometimes bows were used along well into the XVI century.

What he said. I think guns were like the other missile weapons, some people knew how to use them, some didn't. The Czechs were the among the first really effective early innovators with guns in Europe, though it's worth noting the Hussite rebellion wasn't until the 15th Century and firearms had been around since at least the early 14th, maybe earlier. Then again the Czechs made all this famous because they were so successful nobody could beat them, five Crusades were launched against them only to break like waves on a rocky shore, then they went on a rampage through Germany until they basically got bored of it. Such spectacular success really changed the game, but there were smaller examples in other places much earlier.

I think early firearms were tricky and somewhat dangerous to use (especially if you didn't understand them!) but potentially very useful, I think primarily used in the early days in sieges and to bust up cavalry charges at short range like the Hussites did.

Also as swivel mount guns on boats like you saw in the Ukraine and Russia pretty early on...

G.