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

[Dervag]

I can see swivel gun for river craft being a popular application, because as long as you stay on the boat you're effectively immune to being attacked by enemy melee troops. That gives you a lot more freedom to reload your gun.

[fusilier]

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?

I've heard of Italian aviators being saved from British bullets by their parachutes (packed on their backs). These events occurred in early war unarmored fighters, so there may be something to a tightly packed back-pack stopping a rifle round. I wouldn't count on it however.

[fusilier]

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)

I don't have any books from that class, and I probably never even bought them (I learned the hard way not to buy books for a history class until I was sure I was going to use them -- when the bookstore had it's buyback that $30 book still in the shrink wrapping was only worth $5!!). But I did find some rough notes I put together for the final:

Results of the Anarchy:
-In a sense the anarchy never really ended -- under strong leadership Rome would do well, under poor leadership long civil wars would occur.

-The army is ruined, abandons formation fighting. More barbarians, more soldiers in the army loyal to a general, not Rome. Cavalry becomes the premier force.

You seem to be accusing me of not being able to see the "trees" through the "forest" -- I'm probably entirely guilty of such an accusation. ;-)

The fact of the matter is there were no serious external threats to Rome. It's army had to deteriorate quite a bit before the barbarians became a serious threat. I'm sure under strong leadership after the anarchy Rome's army performed better. Rome must still have been formidable compared to outsiders, otherwise it would have collapsed right away. But the discipline that was present before was gone. The Roman Army looked more like a medieval "rabble." That's my broad understanding of the state of the Roman army after the Anarchy.

[Galloglaich]

I can see swivel gun for river craft being a popular application, because as long as you stay on the boat you're effectively immune to being attacked by enemy melee troops. That gives you a lot more freedom to reload your gun.

Yeah there are some cool paintings of battles on the Dnieper or the Don where you can see big sword fights with the Ukrainians or Russians in boats with big swivel guns fighting off hordes of Tartars... when I have some time I'll track a couple down and post them

G.

[Dervag]

I've heard of Italian aviators being saved from British bullets by their parachutes (packed on their backs). These events occurred in early war unarmored fighters, so there may be something to a tightly packed back-pack stopping a rifle round. I wouldn't count on it however.

In this case, the bullet is already slowed by penetrating the skin of the aircraft (somewhat), and the backpack in question is a very dense bundle of parachute silk. Silk isn't exactly kevlar, but it's a strong fabric, and enough layers of it could certainly stop a bullet.

...But I did find some rough notes I put together for the final:

Results of the Anarchy:
-In a sense the anarchy never really ended -- under strong leadership Rome would do well, under poor leadership long civil wars would occur.

-The army is ruined, abandons formation fighting. More barbarians, more soldiers in the army loyal to a general, not Rome. Cavalry becomes the premier force.

You seem to be accusing me of not being able to see the "trees" through the "forest" -- I'm probably entirely guilty of such an accusation. ;-)

The problem is that for me it's questionable whether this stuff is actually true, or whether it's a generalization (either because of your professor's lecture style, or because you oversimplified for the sake of being able to remember it all).

For example, "anarchy" is a loaded word, implying the absence of lawful government. That's a very inaccurate term to use to describe most of the Roman Empire, most of the time: there was a government, there were actual rulers whose orders would be obeyed. A string of succession crises doesn't add up to anarchy.

On top of that, if we say that the "anarchy" is an ongoing condition in which the empire does well under good rulers and badly under bad ones, that could mean anything. Nations always do well under good leaders and badly under bad ones; that's how we know which is which. If we say "oh, well, this case where Emperor Whatshisname took the throne for ten years, crushed several barbarian invasions, and reformed the bureaucracy doesn't really count, because there was another civil war after he died..." that's kind of contrived. We're force-fitting events in the Empire into this idea that it had completely collapsed, rather than looking at events and trying to see if collapse and anarchy are the right way to describe it.

And more specifically, the claim that the Roman army abandoned formation fighting outright is quite ambitious; I'd expect to see some fairly major support for something like that. Barbarians in the army don't mean the army has become indistinguishable from a Germanic tribe, and having soldiers loyal to the general and not the state was hardly new in Roman history (check out the case of Marius, roughly four hundred years earlier).

So overall, I question whether the way you represent the Romans' fate as a steady decline that set in around 200-250 AD and proceeded continuously to the collapse of Western Rome is accurate.

[Crow]

And more specifically, the claim that the Roman army abandoned formation fighting outright is quite ambitious; I'd expect to see some fairly major support for something like that. Barbarians in the army don't mean the army has become indistinguishable from a Germanic tribe, and having soldiers loyal to the general and not the state was hardly new in Roman history (check out the case of Marius, roughly four hundred years earlier).

Quite the opposite, many of the "barbarians" were becoming more organized, and began to use more disciplined formations at the example of the Romans. Possibly what the poster was referring to was the re-organization of the Roman army? Eventually, the auxilia took prominance over the legions in the Empire, and perhaps this is what he mis-remembered?

So overall, I question whether the way you represent the Romans' fate as a steady decline that set in around 200-250 AD and proceeded continuously to the collapse of Western Rome is accurate.

It was a steady decline for the most part, with the exceptions of the rules of Diocletion, Julian, and a few others, but was by no means an anarchy. There were quite a few civil wars in this time, but that isn't anarchy. Most of the Empire actually ran business as usual if they were away from the fighting.

[fusilier]

In this case, the bullet is already slowed by penetrating the skin of the aircraft (somewhat), and the backpack in question is a very dense bundle of parachute silk. Silk isn't exactly kevlar, but it's a strong fabric, and enough layers of it could certainly stop a bullet.

Yeah, that's why I wouldn't trust a backpack to stop a rifle bullet, but it might. The plane would have been canvas skinned (not uncommon in 1940), although the bullet would have to travel through the back of the seat, to be stopped by the parachute. Finally, as you pointed out we are talking about tightly packed silk. The round would have been .303 british.

For example, "anarchy" is a loaded word, implying the absence of lawful government. That's a very inaccurate term to use to describe most of the Roman Empire, most of the time: there was a government, there were actual rulers whose orders would be obeyed. A string of succession crises doesn't add up to anarchy.

That's what it's called, though, "the Anarchy." With a capital A. Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean everybody running around in total chaos (see Anarchists), but I agree that's often the connotation.

On top of that, if we say that the "anarchy" is an ongoing condition in which the empire does well under good rulers and badly under bad ones, that could mean anything. Nations always do well under good leaders and badly under bad ones; that's how we know which is which. If we say "oh, well, this case where Emperor Whatshisname took the throne for ten years, crushed several barbarian invasions, and reformed the bureaucracy doesn't really count, because there was another civil war after he died..." that's kind of contrived. We're force-fitting events in the Empire into this idea that it had completely collapsed, rather than looking at events and trying to see if collapse and anarchy are the right way to describe it.

Actually, that's the whole point. Prior to the anarchy the Imperial bureaucracy could handle the occasional Nero, without civil war. After the Anarchy, Rome needed a strong leader to prevent such civil unrest.

And more specifically, the claim that the Roman army abandoned formation fighting outright is quite ambitious; I'd expect to see some fairly major support for something like that. Barbarians in the army don't mean the army has become indistinguishable from a Germanic tribe, and having soldiers loyal to the general and not the state was hardly new in Roman history (check out the case of Marius, roughly four hundred years earlier).

Ok, so I've tried to do some research, and as always glanced at wikipedia. It's article on the Late Roman army, mentions the "Barbarization" theory promoted by Edward Gibbon.

The article basically rejects his claim that:
"the greater number of barbarian recruits resulted in a major decline of the army's effectiveness and was a leading factor in the collapse of the Western Roman empire"

But the argument seems to be that there's a lack of evidence for this theory, rather than direct evidence that counters it. It seems to rely upon the argument that the army was still effective. However, that doesn't mean it didn't decline in effectiveness, just that it was still effective enough to deal with the external threats. So perhaps my professor was just an adherent to the old school of thought. (On occasion he would hold up his lecture notes, demonstrating that he had been teaching the class for 30 years!). Furthermore a glance of the tactics section of the wiki article, implies that the spear was being used more over the sword . . . an indicator that the level of training had slipped? Like wise the short gladius was replaced with a longer spatha.

So overall, I question whether the way you represent the Romans' fate as a steady decline that set in around 200-250 AD and proceeded continuously to the collapse of Western Rome is accurate.

I'm sure it had it's up's and down's but it was generally a downward trend.

Anyway you have taught me a lesson, that there's clearly some contention here. :-)

[firechicago]

But the argument seems to be that there's a lack of evidence for this theory, rather than direct evidence that counters it. It seems to rely upon the argument that the army was still effective. However, that doesn't mean it didn't decline in effectiveness, just that it was still effective enough to deal with the external threats. So perhaps my professor was just an adherent to the old school of thought. (On occasion he would hold up his lecture notes, demonstrating that he had been teaching the class for 30 years!). Furthermore a glance of the tactics section of the wiki article, implies that the spear was being used more over the sword . . . an indicator that the level of training had slipped? Like wise the short gladius was replaced with a longer spatha.

Three points:

-Lack of evidence isn't evidence of lack, but it will serve in a pinch. To steal an idea from Bertrand Russell there's no evidence that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere out in the Oort Cloud, but that doesn't mean we should be discussing whether the teapot is white or black.

-Am I the only one who would respond to the 30-year old lecture notes by immediately adding an enormous grain of salt to everything in those lectures? Even in the field of classical history, a lot can be discovered in 30 years. And if the prof is still using the same physical lecture notes after 30 years, you can bet he isn't particularly interested in rethinking the material in response to new evidence or arguments.

-A gradual shift to spears and longer swords could have a lot of reasons, not all of which imply deteriorating discipline. For one thing, while the gladius hispaniensis might be great for breaking up phalanxes and spitting Gauls, I'd want something with a little more reach if I were going up against horse-mounted Goths or Vandals.

[Galloglaich]

I'm not an expert on Roman history but my $.002:

From what I understand the shift to the Spatha happened fairly early, around the end of the 1st Century AD. Part of the shift toward moe cavalry was necessitated by the increasing use of horse archers among their enemies (Sarmatians, Parthians et al and later Huns) with powerful recurve bows that could punch through the Roman infantry shields, and also the increasing threat of heavy cavalry similar to amored knights (Cataphracti in the East, and much later the nucleus of European heavy cavalry with Visigoths at Adrianople)

Some of the worst defeats of the Empire by the Barbarians happened at it's inception during the reign of Augustus, most notably Teutonoburg Forest where they lost 3 legions, marking the high-water mark of their expansion across the Rhine / Danube border.

From what I have read, it seemed the problem was the opposite of anarchy - rather a State that had become too powerful, to the point that it was crushing the 'small people' (farmers who were systemtatically turned into serfs in the Latifundia, merchants and artisans who were being taxed beyond their incomes) and a threat to the 'big people' such as Senators and Generals who could be executed or financially ruined at the whim of the Imperator.

This meant that there was a constant ferment in the society, powerful people jockying for positions of control, poor people trying to escape and increasingly aligning themselves with the Barbarians simply because they were less oppressive overlords than the Roman State.

We have to remember, Rome did not 'fall', it gradually strangled itself in the West and broke up into Barbarian states, while in the East it turned in upon itself but still managed to function, as the archetypical / proverbial complex and trechearous 'Byzantine' State, the Byzantine Empire.

G.

[Boci]

Question: Lets assume there is a special division of commandos highly equipped with state of art technology (2010). Part of their weapons is a handgun designed to have a decent chance of killing someone in a Kevlar vest.

A. Is that possible (I believe you can have armour piercing bullets fired from a handgun)?
B. What would the recoil on such a weapon be?

[Mike_G]

Question: Lets assume there is a special division of commandos highly equipped with state of art technology (2010). Part of their weapons is a handgun designed to have a decent chance of killing someone in a Kevlar vest.

A. Is that possible (I believe you can have armour piercing bullets fired from a handgun)?
B. What would the recoil on such a weapon be?

If they're that highly trained, they should just shoot for the head. That's easier than trying to upgun a pistol round.

Jacketed pistol rounds might go through a vest, but they don't do as much to stop the guy in the vest as expanding rounds. A .22 has a decent chance of penetrating a vest, but it isn't all that lethal a round.

[Crow]

Question: Lets assume there is a special division of commandos highly equipped with state of art technology (2010). Part of their weapons is a handgun designed to have a decent chance of killing someone in a Kevlar vest.

A. Is that possible (I believe you can have armour piercing bullets fired from a handgun)?
B. What would the recoil on such a weapon be?

Well, FN makes a pistol which fires a 5.7mm round which has a "decent" chance of killing a person through a kevlar vest. The bullet will easily penetrate the kevlar, but the tissue damage the thing causes is in debate. Either way, a shot that hits the spinal column is almost guaranteed to at least incapacitate the target.

Allegedly, recoil is less than that of a 9mm beretta.

They always trained us to shoot for center of available mass, no matter the weapon, and if it wasn't getting the job done, to change gears and go for the head shot.

[Boci]

Well, FN makes a pistol which fires a 5.7mm round which has a "decent" chance of killing a person through a kevlar vest. The bullet will easily penetrate the kevlar, but the tissue damage the thing causes is in debate. Either way, a shot that hits the spinal column is almost guaranteed to at least incapacitate the target.

Allegedly, recoil is less than that of a 9mm beretta.

They always trained us to shoot for center of available mass, no matter the weapon, and if it wasn't getting the job done, to change gears and go for the head shot.

Okay. If they there willing to swap their weapons out reguarly, would they be able to use something with a greater penetration rate (my understanding is that the harder the bullet the more they damage the gun they are fired from)? If that is possible, roughly how many rounds could be fired beofre the gun needed swapping?

[Eorran]

I have a related question to these past few.

Are counter-terrorism teams or special-operations units (such as SAS, Delta, etc.) ever trained specifically to take headshots? Would that be done exclusively by snipers?

I know many CT games (Rainbow Six), books, and shows often have characters making headshots in fast-moving gunfights. How believable is that? What sort of range would you be fighting at to try and shoot someone's head with a pistol? SMG?

[Crow]

I have a related question to these past few.

Are counter-terrorism teams or special-operations units (such as SAS, Delta, etc.) ever trained specifically to take headshots? Would that be done exclusively by snipers?

I know many CT games (Rainbow Six), books, and shows often have characters making headshots in fast-moving gunfights. How believable is that? What sort of range would you be fighting at to try and shoot someone's head with a pistol? SMG?

Three of my bosses are ex-Delta, so I can get the answer to this question direct from the source, but I am off for the next 2 weeks, so it will be at least that long.

If anything, I can verify the answers that others are going to give to this question as soon as I know.

[Fhaolan]

I have a related question to these past few.

Are counter-terrorism teams or special-operations units (such as SAS, Delta, etc.) ever trained specifically to take headshots? Would that be done exclusively by snipers?

I know many CT games (Rainbow Six), books, and shows often have characters making headshots in fast-moving gunfights. How believable is that? What sort of range would you be fighting at to try and shoot someone's head with a pistol? SMG?

I was under the impression, given conversations with some friends who were special forces in years past, that headshots are not something you specifically train for. You train to shoot a target. In practice, the target might be designated as the head, the center of mass, etc. but thats all kinds of irrelevant. It's just a target to the shooter. The only time it ever becomes a consideration is when the shooter has the time to evaluate the weakest point in the target's armour/cover. Which often *isn't* the head, as the human skull is surprisingly well armoured naturally, plus if they're wearing body armour, likely they're wearing head armour as well.

Of course, this is hearsay as I'm not trained in this way so I can't be sure.

[Mike_G]

I have a related question to these past few.

Are counter-terrorism teams or special-operations units (such as SAS, Delta, etc.) ever trained specifically to take headshots? Would that be done exclusively by snipers?

I know many CT games (Rainbow Six), books, and shows often have characters making headshots in fast-moving gunfights. How believable is that? What sort of range would you be fighting at to try and shoot someone's head with a pistol? SMG?

It's hard to hit a small target like the head, and most military shooting is at center mass, since you can miss by six inches to a foot and still wound your enemy. At any kind of range, any bullet wound will probably make a guy stop shooting, take cover and try hard not to bleed to death. Most snipers, shooting at long range, aim center mass, since a high velocity rifle bullet will punch through a vest, and the cavitation the round makes in the body will rupture organs even if it doesn't hit them directly.

In the Marines, we were taught to shoot center mass, and that's pretty standard for most infantry.

For close quarters, a body shot may very well not drop your enemy quickly, especially with a pistol round, and moreso if the guy is wearing Kevlar. If the guy is five feet from you, he will be more worried about taking you out than his wound. He may bleed out in 30 seconds, but he can put a magazine into you/the hostages/your buddies in 30 seconds.

Andy McNabb, former SAS, Gulf War veteran and author of a handful of books, describes how he trained to use the MP5 for semi auto, just head shots for close quarters battle, since he claims that's the only way to guarantee the guy drops and doesn't shoot you first before falling.

[Dervag]

That's what it's called, though, "the Anarchy." With a capital A. Anarchy doesn't necessarily mean everybody running around in total chaos (see Anarchists), but I agree that's often the connotation.

It's called "the Anarchy" by whom, though? I have heard the term only rarely, if ever, before you started using it. If the term is not widely used, that may be because it is not considered an accurate term by the historical community.

Actually, that's the whole point. Prior to the anarchy the Imperial bureaucracy could handle the occasional Nero, without civil war. After the Anarchy, Rome needed a strong leader to prevent such civil unrest.

The civil wars were invariably produced by succession crises. What about times and places where there was no active fighting over the succession going on? Was the state of those areas "anarchy," or was it business as usual for the Imperial bureaucracy and aristocrats?

However, that doesn't mean it didn't decline in effectiveness, just that it was still effective enough to deal with the external threats. So perhaps my professor was just an adherent to the old school of thought. (On occasion he would hold up his lecture notes, demonstrating that he had been teaching the class for 30 years!).

That is NOT a good sign; while the past of the Roman Empire hasn't changed in the past thirty years, the study of it has changed considerably.

Furthermore a glance of the tactics section of the wiki article, implies that the spear was being used more over the sword . . . an indicator that the level of training had slipped? Like wise the short gladius was replaced with a longer spatha.

Since it is very possible, even easy, to have highly trained units with spearmen or longer swords, a switch in weapons is not evidence of collapsing discipline.

[Zincorium]

Okay. If they there willing to swap their weapons out reguarly, would they be able to use something with a greater penetration rate (my understanding is that the harder the bullet the more they damage the gun they are fired from)? If that is possible, roughly how many rounds could be fired beofre the gun needed swapping?

Penetration of common bullet types, from least to greatest:
-Glazer or other highly frangible rounds
-old style hollowpoints
-newer style hollowpoints, jacketed soft point
-full metal jacket
-FMJ with steel or tungsten penetrator
-APDS

NONE of the above will cause undue wear and tear on the barrel compared to each other. All of them have pros and cons that will have to be individually weighed for the mission at hand, and for military use only the last three should even be considered.

Typical rifle rounds (FMJ in most cases) are not consistently stopped by any kevlar type material in use- trauma plates of ceramic or steel have to be added to the vital areas to avoid penetration. Tungsten penetrators or high power rifle rounds will go through even that. I'm not aware of any armor you can wear that will actually stop a .50 BMG, and the impact alone would kill most people even if it doesn't penetrate.

[Boci]

Penetration of common bullet types, from least to greatest:
-Glazer or other highly frangible rounds
-old style hollowpoints
-newer style hollowpoints, jacketed soft point
-full metal jacket
-FMJ with steel or tungsten penetrator
-APDS

Can all such rounds be fired from a handgun? If so what would the recoil be?

NONE of the above will cause undue wear and tear on the barrel compared to each other. All of them have pros and cons that will have to be individually weighed for the mission at hand, and for military use only the last three should even be considered.

Oh right, must have been mistaken about the ammunition damaging the gun thing.

[Fhaolan]

I'm not aware of any armor you can wear that will actually stop a .50 BMG, and the impact alone would kill most people even if it doesn't penetrate.

Isn't there some kind of insane handgun that can fire a .50 BMG round? I have vague memories of seeing something like that on a History/Discovery Channel thing once. If it does exist, it must be a two-hander, as I can't see that *not* simply disconnecting your hand from your arm due to recoil.

[Mike_G]

Isn't there some kind of insane handgun that can fire a .50 BMG round? I have vague memories of seeing something like that on a History/Discovery Channel thing once. If it does exist, it must be a two-hander, as I can't see that *not* simply disconnecting your hand from your arm due to recoil.

The Desert Eagle is a .50 caliber handgun, but it is not the same round as the .50 cal BMG. It's much shorter, with less propellant, therefor less muzzle velocity, less energy, less penetration, less damage.

And thus, a manageable recoil.

It's like a slightly wider .45.

[fusilier]

Some of the worst defeats of the Empire by the Barbarians happened at it's inception during the reign of Augustus, most notably Teutonoburg Forest where they lost 3 legions, marking the high-water mark of their expansion across the Rhine / Danube border.

This is remarkable, by how badly the Romans bungled the (strategic) offensive. However, it does not demonstrate that the Roman legions were incapable of fending off barbarian invasions. Everything I've heard about this event is that it is aberration for that time period in history.

From what I have read, it seemed the problem was the opposite of anarchy - rather a State that had become too powerful, to the point that it was crushing the 'small people' (farmers who were systemtatically turned into serfs in the Latifundia, merchants and artisans who were being taxed beyond their incomes) and a threat to the 'big people' such as Senators and Generals who could be executed or financially ruined at the whim of the Imperator.

Not going to go too much into this, because my knowledge is fairly limited. However the economic despair and barbarian invasions, led more people to seek shelter in the cities. The cities were becoming overcrowded, and their weren't enough people working the farms. One of the last things the Roman Empire did was bind people to the land, in an attempt to stop the migrations -- thus creating serfdom. It was too little, too late.

This meant that there was a constant ferment in the society, powerful people jockying for positions of control, poor people trying to escape and increasingly aligning themselves with the Barbarians simply because they were less oppressive overlords than the Roman State.

We have to remember, Rome did not 'fall', it gradually strangled itself in the West and broke up into Barbarian states, while in the East it turned in upon itself but still managed to function, as the archetypical / proverbial complex and trechearous 'Byzantine' State, the Byzantine Empire.

G.

I would agree with most of what you say. Not so sure about the oppressiveness of the Roman State. My understanding is that lot of the initial barbarian kingdoms retained a lot of what was left of the Roman legal structures (and things like serfdom). Probably, if Rome was deteriorating the difference between living under the barbarians or Rome was starting to become negligible.

About the term Anarchy. Anarchy means "without government." During the Roman "Anarchy" there were tons of competing "emperors", and many assassinations. I cannot imagine that at the top level of the government there was much effective governance during such upheaval. This doesn't mean that local government ceased. Anyway, it is called the "Anarchy" by enough authority that I'm going to continue to call it that. I always use it with the definitive article, but I will try to capitalize it so you are aware that I am referring to the specific event in history, and not anarchy in general.

Let me give a slightly more detailed explanation of the collapse of the Roman army, as it was communicated to me.

First off, the power of the emperor rested on the army (true in most dictatorships). It was sometime before the Army realized this, but once they became seriously involved in determining who the emperor was, there was no going back. This was "the Anarchy" from 235-285. The army deteriorated, the soldiers became more loyal to a general, rather than to Rome. Individual generals jockeyed to become "Emperor" and the soldiers became more mercenary. They followed whichever general offered them the best loot. Generals attempting to recruit soldiers in this kind of populist manner, aren't going to insist on 20-mile a day marches, and strict discipline. While many of the initial soldiers were probably decently trained veterans, over a couple of generations they would disappear. After the "Anarchy", the state of the imperial government was such that it couldn't return to the "good old days" and the army was unable to recover. It continued a slow decay (along with other aspects of the empire), until it could no longer prevent barbarian invasions.

While I may not be able to present direct evidence for this, the theory seems consistent and provides a coherent explanation for why the empire fell to external forces.

To be honest, and I don't mean to offend anyone here, the alternatives smack of the "superiority" of the northern races over the southern types. If you assume that the Roman military maintained a good level of professionalism, training, and fighting effectiveness. The german barbarians must have defeated them because they were just "superior" warriors. Or, if as crow suggested, they gradually adopted Roman tactics. But then they would have to abandon such tactics, shortly after the fall of Rome?

I am reminded of a book I bought for my father, about the 10 greatest battles of all time. I didn't realize it was a reprint of book from the 1850s! My father said that while reading about the Romans, the author was keen to point out how Rome ruled britain, and that the British inherit from them. That is, until the battle in the Teutonoburg Forest -- then he switched, and talked about how much the British owed to the superior "saxons", blah, blah, blah.

If the Roman military did retain a high level of professionalism, why did it fall to the barbarians? I'm not saying that the barbarians would not have learned and adapted. But a high level of organization in a military, usually requires a rather high level organization in the government, and I don't see the barbarian kingdoms matching the Romans at this, until, perhaps, the end of the empire, when Rome was deteriorating. If the barbarians, somehow, managed to match Rome's high level of tactics and organizational abilities, why did they regress after the fall of Rome? To me the answer that Rome deteriorated seems more likely. Also it's hard to imagine that the deterioration of the economy and government would not have a significant impact on the state of the military.

[Zincorium]

Can all such rounds be fired from a handgun? If so what would the recoil be?.

Not all such rounds are available for all calibers of handgun, but there are examples of each for various weapons, and you can make them yourself with a proper workshop for any given handgun you're using. Recoil will vary based on the weight of the round, but a specific type isn't going to have a single weight, there's always a range of weights.

It's complicated. If you're really interested, join an organization focused on shooting sports, like the NRA or CMP here in the US, and ask the people there about specifics.

Isn't there some kind of insane handgun that can fire a .50 BMG round? I have vague memories of seeing something like that on a History/Discovery Channel thing once. If it does exist, it must be a two-hander, as I can't see that *not* simply disconnecting your hand from your arm due to recoil.

There have been experimental single shot .50 BMG pistols, with massive muzzle brakes, and I can't imagine they were pleasant to fire regardless.
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315...s/0600/601.htm

The Desert Eagle is a .50 caliber handgun, but it is not the same round as the .50 cal BMG. It's much shorter, with less propellant, therefor less muzzle velocity, less energy, less penetration, less damage.

And thus, a manageable recoil.

It's like a slightly wider .45.

You're right about the desert eagle firing a different round, which is called the .50 Action Express to differentiate it. But really, it isn't even the same bullet diameter as the .50 BMG, and literally everything else is wildly different.

On a side note, desert eagles are fun to shoot, but at least in my limited experience they aren't reliable at all. I think with a freshly cleaned gun I had a failure every 10 rounds.

[Fhaolan]

There have been experimental single shot .50 BMG pistols, with massive muzzle brakes, and I can't imagine they were pleasant to fire regardless.
http://www.securityarms.com/20010315...s/0600/601.htm

Yeah, that's the sucker I saw on TV. It was probably during one of those 'Future Weapon' things.

[Stephen_E]

Fusilier, keep in mind that professionalism has never stopped an army been defeated (Spartacus repeatedly hammered army after army before he was eventually defeated).
The main advantage of a professional, disiplined army is that they handle defeat better.
Poor leadership, or superior leadership on the otherside can easily negate any combat advantages of professionalism and disipline.

I'd also note that using serfdom to force people to stay on the landis more than "to little to late", it's a fricken stupid idea. Slavery (which serfdom is a form of) tends to be inefficent.
And while I'm no expert on Rome, my understanding is that many of the people used to be well equipped ex-legionaires. When various policies changed that then the villages became more vunerable to been raided, which combined with ursious taxation policies, saw population flight.

Stephen E

[fusilier]

Fusilier, keep in mind that professionalism has never stopped an army been defeated (Spartacus repeatedly hammered army after army before he was eventually defeated).
The main advantage of a professional, disiplined army is that they handle defeat better.
Poor leadership, or superior leadership on the otherside can easily negate any combat advantages of professionalism and disipline.

Oh, yes, I don't disagree. But those events aren't necessarily the norm, especially when we are talking about strategically defensive operations. Being able to handle defeat would be a great benefit in such situations. Certainly motivation is a factor that needs to be addressed. That all ties in with the thesis - troops that are less motivated to fight for the nation, are probably going to be inferior. Retention is another issue. Simply meting out harsh punishments for desertion (don't actually know if the Romans did) has historically done little to prevent it. Note that Spartacus was eventually defeated (as was Carthage). That resiliency that Rome's armies, even the Roman people, had shown seems to be ebbing away after the Anarchy. I'm sure economic factors influenced attitudes in the populace -- but I don't see why the army would be immune to such factors. Dedicated training is going to become difficult under a suffering economy, and an increasingly indifferent population.

A long string of poor military leadership, will almost inevitably result in a decrease in morale, discipline, and training. So while I don't doubt that the occasional battle would be lost due to some sort of individual incompetence (or won by some sort of individual brilliance), the Roman Army appears to suffer from systematic decay after the Anarchy. If, from time-to-time, some brilliant leadership ameliorates the situation, that doesn't mean that the system has been fixed.

I'd also note that using serfdom to force people to stay on the landis more than "to little to late", it's a fricken stupid idea. Slavery (which serfdom is a form of) tends to be inefficent.
And while I'm no expert on Rome, my understanding is that many of the people used to be well equipped ex-legionaires. When various policies changed that then the villages became more vunerable to been raided, which combined with ursious taxation policies, saw population flight.

Stephen E

Heh. :-) Well, if my recollection is correct, the Romans were big fans of slavery. That was another economic problem that they had: more and more land being worked by slaves, and not freemen. It was certainly a flawed system in the long run.

Ok, I think I've taken this much too far from the topic of weapons and armor. I like these arguments because I get to learn from them, but I'll try to refrain from this particular topic from now on. :-)

[Stephen_E]

Ok, I think I've taken this much too far from the topic of weapons and armor. I like these arguments because I get to learn from them, but I'll try to refrain from this particular topic from now on. :-)

The surrounding conditions are in part a legitimate topic because they are so influential.
In the same way that you can discuss weapon performance and use in abstract to a certain degree, but if talking about real-life then evetually you have to take into account the conditions surrounding it's use, terrain, weather, training level, armour it faces, economy that produces it ect.

Things don't stand in isolation.

Stephen E

[Theodoric]

Heh. :-) Well, if my recollection is correct, the Romans were big fans of slavery. That was another economic problem that they had: more and more land being worked by slaves, and not freemen. It was certainly a flawed system in the long run.

The main problem was that slavery was so very succesfull*, free farmers culdn't keep up, so they moved to the city, creating the proletarians (not in the Marxist sense ); and the land that came available was taken over by the semi-rich or rich people or the 'government', which further increased the rich/poor split. The Marian reforms did help to alleviate that, but added in a whole new group of problems (namely, the amounts of land that are available didn't increase much after a certain point, soldiers became very loyal to their generals, etc.).

*well, for a time that was the case. Note that the 'slave' demographic was naturally decreasing, with many turning into freedmen over the years; the amount of slaves avialable was entirely dependent on any new conquests, and those did end after a while.

t's a bit hard to explain correctly, since this is a multi-century process with many things happening at the same time, but in short, the Roman Republic and Empire very very much dependent in many ways on expansion and conquest.

[MickJay]

One of the main reasons why the Romans started losing to barbarians during late antiquity was that they were no longer dealing with bands of raiders, but rather with wholesale migration of numerous tribes that were seeking to settle on Roman soil. At the same time, Rome was constantly engaged in border war with Persia in the east, and the troops had to be often moved from one end of the empire to the other.

At that time, Romans were aware that the barbarian soldiers were, on average, simply better fighters than themselves, and they would hire the services of whole tribes to act as part of Roman forces, with the barbarian king acting as the leader of his men. In many ways it worked quite well, as the farmers could stay and work on their land (the slave population was dwindling, in no small part due lack of aggressive wars), and the barbarians would be defending the empire rather than raiding it - and they were already used to fighting with other barbarians as well.

As for the changes in equipment and tactics, well, Romans were always quick to adapt - new enemies required new approach, and the Romans simply responded to the situation.