Page 32 of 88 FirstFirst ... 72223242526272829303132333435363738394041425782 ... LastLast
Results 931 to 960 of 2635
  1. - Top - End - #931
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    NC

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

    Yes, the US Marine Corps is a branch of the Navy. Even so, they have their own special forces - Recon. I think you're more likely to get into the Seals as a Seaman rather than as a Marine. however, Marines can be Seals - they pull from all over. For that matter, the organization originally included Army personnel.
    -
    I laugh at myself first, before anyone else can.
    -- Paraphrased from Elsa Maxwell
    -
    The more labels you have for yourself, the dumber they make you.
    -- Paul Graham in Keep Your Identity Small

  2. - Top - End - #932
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fusilier View Post
    I thought the Marine Corps was a branch of the Navy?
    Not quite.

    The US Marine Corps comes under the Department of the Navy. Marines serve on most large Navy ships, traditionally guard the Captain's quarters, and provide a landing force for the Fleet. The Marines have no medics or chaplains, we get them from the Navy. Any Marine unit has Naval personnel assigned, at least as Hospital Corpsmen, and any large Naval base or ship has Marines on it.

    The Navy and Marines work very closely together, but each is a separate branch of the service, with funding, administration and so on of its own. The rank structure of the USMC is closer (though not identical) to the Army than the Navy. Marines have Corporals and Sergeants, the Navy has Petty Officers and so on.

    The Navy has no infantry specialty, so a sailor out of boot camp will train in a naval specialty, like gunnery or signals or engines or whatever before requesting SEAL training. Part of SEAL training is basic infantry skills, although their specialized training goes far beyond that.

    And even though the SEALs are highly trained combat specialists, they still have bell bottoms on their dress uniforms, and have to wear the white Good Humor uniforms in the summer.
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  3. - Top - End - #933
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2008

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

    In that case wouldn't Marine Infantrymen who re-enlisted in the Navy have a better shot at being a SEAL, since they already have more infantry training than regular seamen?

  4. - Top - End - #934
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Zincorium's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Oak Harbor, WA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Fortinbras, you seem to be under the impression that SEALs are some sort of 'super-infantry'. Actually do some research on what the mission types SEALS are given, you'll probably be surprised.

    SEALs used to be what was known as frogmen- their core skill set remains centered around diving, stealth, and demolition of assets. They do have snipers attached for some missions, and they're highly trained in combat, but they aren't Rambo types.

    Frankly, joining as a Marine and then trying to join the Navy to be a SEAL sends all the wrong messages- SEAL training mostly focuses on perseverance and dedication to a single goal.
    "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
    - Thomas Jefferson

    Avatar by Meynolds!

  5. - Top - End - #935
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Zincorium View Post
    Fortinbras, you seem to be under the impression that SEALs are some sort of 'super-infantry'. Actually do some research on what the mission types SEALS are given, you'll probably be surprised.

    SEALs used to be what was known as frogmen- their core skill set remains centered around diving, stealth, and demolition of assets. They do have snipers attached for some missions, and they're highly trained in combat, but they aren't Rambo types.

    Frankly, joining as a Marine and then trying to join the Navy to be a SEAL sends all the wrong messages- SEAL training mostly focuses on perseverance and dedication to a single goal.

    In fairness, the original underwater demolitions mission has been expanded to include a lot more combat missions, for which infantry training is necessarily a foundation. SEAL training does a lot of laying the groundwork of infantry combat.

    Whatever the sailor may have picked up in his Naval specialty school will be of less use in a commando raid than what he'd have learned at Infantry Combat Regiment at Camp Lejeune.

    You are correct that the quickest route to SEAL training is to joining the right service, but it's easier to make an Infantryman into a special forces operator than it is to make a Carpenter's Mate into one.
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  6. - Top - End - #936
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    GM.Casper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009

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

    Repeating crossbows. How do they compare to a musket? Rate of fire is clearly superior. Could one equip a large force with repeating crossbows and employ them as Napoleon era musketeers?

  7. - Top - End - #937
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Storm Bringer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    kendal, england
    Gender
    Male

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

    don't know.

    what i do know is that the chinese, who had repeated crossbows, switched to the matchlock muskets when they had the chance.
    Avatar by sparkey477.

    Coming outta nowhere, dropping like rain,
    Stormbringer dance on the thunder agian!
    Dark clouds gathering, breaking the day,
    No point running, 'cos he's coming your way!

    Rock the rainbow, Rock the Sky!
    Stormbringer comming, Time to Die!

    Deep purple, Stormbringer.

  8. - Top - End - #938
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Spiryt's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Male

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

    Here is some info

    Obviously, with short draw lenght, bolts without feathers, and string drawn with movements of such lever, it was propably more of a harrasing weapon, as pointed out. And probably rather tiring to hands, anyway.

    As for the second question...

    Well, such silly speculations are not what I like, but I can certainly say : NO.

    Regardless of how "effective" such could potentially be, it certainly won't work in similar way to musketeers.
    Avatar by Kwarkpudding
    The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing;
    Rush in and die, dogs—I was a man before I was a king.

    Whoever makes shoddy beer, shall be thrown into manure - town law from Gdańsk, XIth century.

  9. - Top - End - #939
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Shademan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    raiding wales!
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by GM.Casper View Post
    Repeating crossbows. How do they compare to a musket? Rate of fire is clearly superior. Could one equip a large force with repeating crossbows and employ them as Napoleon era musketeers?
    the chinese repeating crossbow had lower power, range etc than other crossbows but was great for spraying bolts all over the place. great for city defence. but you would not have a army focused on the repeater, maybe a regiment or two.
    Need a setting for your game? a character concept? any gaming related ideas? I make far to many to eat up myself, and therefor I am willing to share them. Free ideas! Get yer fluff here! PM me.


    The friendly neighborhood gentleman perv is always ready to help!

    on M&B:
    Quote Originally Posted by Celesyne
    oh, and looting villages is REALLY good money, if a nearby lord doesn't stop by and give you a daily dose of rape.
    http://baetzler.de/humor/meat_beings.html

  10. - Top - End - #940
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2010

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

    How effective is medevil plate mail (including the inner leather and chain mail layers) against fragmentation weapons. I'm dizcounting the concussive force here. I need to know for both grenades and mortars. The mail in question is late medevil period, if that matters.
    Proud member of the fanclub fanclub.

  11. - Top - End - #941
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by redlock View Post
    How effective is medevil plate mail (including the inner leather and chain mail layers) against fragmentation weapons. I'm dizcounting the concussive force here. I need to know for both grenades and mortars. The mail in question is late medevil period, if that matters.
    I'd say very.

    Fragments are fairly slow moving, non aerodynamically shaped, and not so dense, compared to bullets. Modern body armor, and even WWI era simple steel helmets would stop shrapnel but not rifle or machine gun rounds.

    Full, 15th century cap a pie plate should stop the fragments from grenades pretty well, and even the larger, heavier fragments from a mortar bomb if you are any real distance from the burst.

    I doubt that any given fragment would hit with as much force as the spike on the back of a warhammer swung by a strong man, which is how you want to defeat plate.
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  12. - Top - End - #942
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    I agree with mike, very. I think they even tested this on that stupid deadliest warrior show. Also agree on that Chinese repeating crossbow, it's a very light powered weapon, to make it more effective they poisoned the darts.

    That said it was used through the 19th Century so it had it's little niche.

    G.
    Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-02-14 at 01:11 AM.
    “The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”

    -Thucydides

    Check out Codex Martialis on 1d4chan

    The Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic - take your RPG to a world you've never been before.

    Codex Martialis- fast paced realistic combat for 3.5 OGL.

  13. - Top - End - #943
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by redlock View Post
    How effective is medevil plate mail (including the inner leather and chain mail layers) against fragmentation weapons. I'm dizcounting the concussive force here. I need to know for both grenades and mortars. The mail in question is late medevil period, if that matters.
    Plate would be quite effective. The actual plate part can take a serious beating and distributes the hit, and the leather provides some padding. You'd still get knocked down as the plate won't help much from that, but damage would be severely reduced... especially with late medieval plate, where they were pumping up the armor to deal with heavier duty bows and early guns.

    Chainmail would be worthless, and likely result in bits of chain being imbedded in the wearer. But plate would be very handy.

    JaronK

  14. - Top - End - #944
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    Fragments are fairly slow moving, non aerodynamically shaped, and not so dense, compared to bullets. Modern body armor, and even WWI era simple steel helmets would stop shrapnel but not rifle or machine gun rounds.
    I'm not so sure about this. WWI era helmets *could* stop shrapnel, but I'm not sure how reliably, and what the conditions are. I think the British tested the French Adrian helmet and claimed it would stop 3 out of 4 shrapnel balls. Which would indicate they were using proper shrapnel, which was mostly replaced by simple high-explosive shells as the war went on. Certainly armor would provide a layer of increased protection, but we are also dealing with battlefield conditions where shrapnel can be thrown well over a hundred yards. A defensive grenade exploding in close proximity to a WWI tank could potentially puncture the armor (hence grenade nets on the early marks), but it was generally impervious to machine-gun/rifle ammo. (I say generally, because machine-gun and rifle ammo tended to create spalling of the armor on the inside of the tank).

    The lack of mobility of full plate armor (and I mean in the sense of being able to dive for cover, and get up quickly), would probably make it very poor for modern warfare. All nations in WW1 had fairly complete armor that could stop even rifle bullets at around 100 yards. They might be issued to sentries and machine gunners (people who weren't expected to move a lot), maybe even sappers in the 19th century style. The Italians issued armor to wire cutting parties, but even they gradually abandoned it in favor of increased mobility.

    So, yes, full plate armor would be "effective", but it wouldn't make the wearer impervious to shrapnel.

  15. - Top - End - #945
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fusilier View Post
    I'm not so sure about this. WWI era helmets *could* stop shrapnel, but I'm not sure how reliably, and what the conditions are. I think the British tested the French Adrian helmet and claimed it would stop 3 out of 4 shrapnel balls. Which would indicate they were using proper shrapnel, which was mostly replaced by simple high-explosive shells as the war went on. Certainly armor would provide a layer of increased protection, but we are also dealing with battlefield conditions where shrapnel can be thrown well over a hundred yards. A defensive grenade exploding in close proximity to a WWI tank could potentially puncture the armor (hence grenade nets on the early marks), but it was generally impervious to machine-gun/rifle ammo. (I say generally, because machine-gun and rifle ammo tended to create spalling of the armor on the inside of the tank).

    The lack of mobility of full plate armor (and I mean in the sense of being able to dive for cover, and get up quickly), would probably make it very poor for modern warfare. All nations in WW1 had fairly complete armor that could stop even rifle bullets at around 100 yards. They might be issued to sentries and machine gunners (people who weren't expected to move a lot), maybe even sappers in the 19th century style. The Italians issued armor to wire cutting parties, but even they gradually abandoned it in favor of increased mobility.

    So, yes, full plate armor would be "effective", but it wouldn't make the wearer impervious to shrapnel.
    I don't think anybody is arguing for "impervious," but modern armor works better against fragments than against rifle rounds, so it's reasonable to assume that medieval armor that can stop hard blows from heavby weapons would stop fragments.

    That said, there are fragments and fragments. If you catch the base plate from a 105 mm shell, I don't think the best body armor in the world would save you, but the small, irregular fragments from a 25mm gun would probably not penetrate plate.
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  16. - Top - End - #946
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    That said, there are fragments and fragments. If you catch the base plate from a 105 mm shell, I don't think the best body armor in the world would save you, but the small, irregular fragments from a 25mm gun would probably not penetrate plate.
    Exactly. A lot of these "fragmentation" weapons don't fragment very evenly (although my knowledge is of older WW1/2-era weapons), with an awkward combination of large and small splinters. Even a defensive grenade can throw fragments with deadly force for something like a 100 yards. Which is why troops throwing defensive grenades are supposed to be behind some kind of cover. Such fragments, even from a grenade, *could* be fairly big, and probably have sufficient force to puncture most armor. Typically, there are complaints about irregular dispersion of such fragments, and it seems to be preferable to have a regular dispersion of smaller splinters. But it also seems to have been difficult (at least historically) to get that dispersion.
    Last edited by fusilier; 2010-02-17 at 04:08 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #947
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Mike_G's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Laughing with the sinners
    Gender
    Male

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

    The original question was "how effective would late medieval plate be against fragmentation weapons, like grenades and mortars."

    I still say "very."

    Full plate armor covers most of the body, and is as good at keeping sharp metal edges out of the body. And fragments aren't all that deadly, in the scale of bad things that we throw at one another. Fragments generally wound, whereas bullets often kill.

    To give a fairly scientific example of fragmentation damage, in the south Pacific in WWII, fragments, mostly from grenades or mortars, caused 50% of allied casualties, but less than 20% of fatalities. Bullets accounted for about 50% of casualties, but better than 80% of fatalities. The numbers work best in this theater, since there was little heavy artillery or aerial bombing by the Japanese after the very early stages, as compared to other theaters.

    A teacher of mine had a Japanese grenade explode close to him on Saipan, and he was back on the lines the next day. He suffered no lasting harm beyond picking bits of metal out of his skin for the next 50 years. Had he been in full plate, he'd likely have shrugged it off. Although, he'd have drowned before hitting the beach, but that's another story
    Out of wine comes truth, out of truth the vision clears, and with vision soon appears a grand design. From the grand design we can understand the world. And when you understand the world, you need a lot more wine.


  18. - Top - End - #948
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike_G View Post
    The original question was "how effective would late medieval plate be against fragmentation weapons, like grenades and mortars."

    I still say "very."

    Full plate armor covers most of the body, and is as good at keeping sharp metal edges out of the body. And fragments aren't all that deadly, in the scale of bad things that we throw at one another. Fragments generally wound, whereas bullets often kill.

    To give a fairly scientific example of fragmentation damage, in the south Pacific in WWII, fragments, mostly from grenades or mortars, caused 50% of allied casualties, but less than 20% of fatalities. Bullets accounted for about 50% of casualties, but better than 80% of fatalities. The numbers work best in this theater, since there was little heavy artillery or aerial bombing by the Japanese after the very early stages, as compared to other theaters.

    A teacher of mine had a Japanese grenade explode close to him on Saipan, and he was back on the lines the next day. He suffered no lasting harm beyond picking bits of metal out of his skin for the next 50 years. Had he been in full plate, he'd likely have shrugged it off. Although, he'd have drowned before hitting the beach, but that's another story
    Modern fragmentation grenades have a casualty radius of around 15 yards, and seem to have gone a long way to getting a good dispersion (been checking out wikipedia). Older grenades could easily have a casualty radius of 2 to 3 times that amount. That radius is supposed to be the radius in which troops wounded by the grenade will be of no immediate threat. In this context the story about your teacher reinforces my statement about the irregular nature that the fragments can have. Even in modern grenades, they can still send the occasional big fragment a good distance (as I understand it, on a lot of grenade designs the fuse assembly can be projected mostly intact). If you're hit by one of those, armor probably isn't going to help very much. That's all I'm saying. I recognize that the probability of being hit by a big fragment is lower than being hit by some small ones. I've never actually seen an RPG that accounts for the fact that splinters from most fragmentation devices can be of various sizes, and it's something I've puzzled over.

  19. - Top - End - #949
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Well, consider an analogy to how armor was used in the medieval period. It won't stop ALL attacks, but it'll let you shrug off little cuts that would have disabled you. A gentle tap on the shoulder with a sword, and you could very well lose the use of that arm for several minutes due to shock. With armor, that hit doesn't do anything. A massive mordschlag is going to take you out of the fight if it connects, armor or not, but the armor might turn it into a concussion rather than a caved skull.

    Same thing when you're considering plate vs. fragments. Smaller fragments suddenly become much less dangerous. They can still hurt, can still penetrate the unarmored parts, etc, but much of the body is protected so you barely feel them. Large fragments will still penetrate plate armor, just like a musket ball can, but they are much more rare.

  20. - Top - End - #950
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    California
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fusilier View Post
    Modern fragmentation grenades have a casualty radius of around 15 yards, and seem to have gone a long way to getting a good dispersion (been checking out wikipedia). Older grenades could easily have a casualty radius of 2 to 3 times that amount. That radius is supposed to be the radius in which troops wounded by the grenade will be of no immediate threat. In this context the story about your teacher reinforces my statement about the irregular nature that the fragments can have. Even in modern grenades, they can still send the occasional big fragment a good distance (as I understand it, on a lot of grenade designs the fuse assembly can be projected mostly intact). If you're hit by one of those, armor probably isn't going to help very much. That's all I'm saying. I recognize that the probability of being hit by a big fragment is lower than being hit by some small ones. I've never actually seen an RPG that accounts for the fact that splinters from most fragmentation devices can be of various sizes, and it's something I've puzzled over.
    Isn't that the reason the airmen of the bombers in WWII worn flak jackets against fragments of flak? Then again those protection can be a bit heavier or bulkier than the typical full plate.
    Around here I have a very responsible position. Every time something goes wrong I'm responsible.

  21. - Top - End - #951
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hurlbut View Post
    Isn't that the reason the airmen of the bombers in WWII worn flak jackets against fragments of flak? Then again those protection can be a bit heavier or bulkier than the typical full plate.
    Also they protected less area. I'm not so certain about the nature of flak, and I think flak jackets were issued to the crew members in un-armored or lightly armored portions of the planes?

  22. - Top - End - #952
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Storm Bringer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    kendal, england
    Gender
    Male

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

    Speaking what i can remeber form my grenade lessons:

    15m is the radius agianst an unarmoured target. agianst someone wearing modern combat armour, we are told to reckon 5m. this figure is the 'effective' raduis, which i assume matchs up to to fusilier line that those hit would be out of combat.

    However, Modern combat armour leaves a lot more of the body exposed than full plate does. I'd imagine that full plate would be at least as good, if not slightly better, than current gen armour agianst grenade blasts.
    Avatar by sparkey477.

    Coming outta nowhere, dropping like rain,
    Stormbringer dance on the thunder agian!
    Dark clouds gathering, breaking the day,
    No point running, 'cos he's coming your way!

    Rock the rainbow, Rock the Sky!
    Stormbringer comming, Time to Die!

    Deep purple, Stormbringer.

  23. - Top - End - #953
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DwarfClericGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2007

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fusilier View Post
    Also they protected less area. I'm not so certain about the nature of flak, and I think flak jackets were issued to the crew members in un-armored or lightly armored portions of the planes?
    The planes had no armor.

  24. - Top - End - #954
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hawriel View Post
    The planes had no armor.
    They had armor mate.

    G.
    “The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”

    -Thucydides

    Check out Codex Martialis on 1d4chan

    The Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic - take your RPG to a world you've never been before.

    Codex Martialis- fast paced realistic combat for 3.5 OGL.

  25. - Top - End - #955
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Thiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Aalborg - Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    They had armor mate.

    G.
    Wasn't it the Lightning that had an armoured plate behind the pilot seat, or was it the Thunderbolt*?
    I also remember something about belly plates. Can't remember if it was on a bomber or a transport.

    *Aka the manliest plane of all time
    Last edited by Thiel; 2010-02-19 at 09:36 AM.



    Calcifer the Fire Demon by Djinn_In_Tonic

  26. - Top - End - #956
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    One major thing to consider re; grenades etc., is modern high explosives are much more efficient than primitive black powder which was used back in pre-industrial times.

    Grenades of one type or another go back to the 8th or 9th Century AD, in the form of naptha or quicklime or Greek Fire etc.. Osama Ibn Muniqh described grenades being used against the "Franks" during the Crusades in a passage I think I quoted on this thread. Anyone who looked up the wiki has probably already seen this image:



    By the 13th -14th Century when Gunpowder first arrives in Europe, hand-thrown bombs quickly became a widespread weapon, popular with commanders if not soldiers (since they were so dangerous to use) and what we would recognize as hand-grenades appeared no later than the 15th Century. Actual grenade launchers by the 16th, and pretty modern cast-iron grenades by the 17th. So in other words, the advent of grenades coincided with armor and the armor would have been designed with knowledge of the effects of grenades.

    The grenades, mortars etc. we have today are much smaller and much more powerful than the ones even used 50 years ago in WW II, which are in turn much more powerful than the ones used by Grenadiers in the 19th Century.... which were much more powerful than the type used in the 16th and 17th Century. Modern high explosives like nitro glycerin, TNT, RDX, composition B, composition C (c-4),, Sentec etc. are very powerful compared to black powder! A much smaller amount will send fragments moving much faster.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_B
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDX

    But the bottom line is, the lethality of fragments from an explosion will always depend on many factors: the size and power of the explosive, and where it blows up, what is around it when it explodes, and what it is made of etc. A mortar shell dropped in a hard stone crevase will be much more dangerous than a grenade going off in thick mud.

    But a full armored panoply featuring tempered steel armor like a Renaissance era maximilian harness, (which was much more sophisticated than any steel body armor made in WW II or modern times) would have been good protection I think, I suspect much better than modern body armor, but it all depends on the explosive device in question.

    G.
    “The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”

    -Thucydides

    Check out Codex Martialis on 1d4chan

    The Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic - take your RPG to a world you've never been before.

    Codex Martialis- fast paced realistic combat for 3.5 OGL.

  27. - Top - End - #957
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thiel View Post
    Wasn't it the Lightning that had an armoured plate behind the pilot seat?
    I also remember something about belly plates. Can't remember if it was on a bomber or a transport.
    Both the Lightning and the Thunderbolt had armor plates behind the pilot, all American fighters in WW II did. They also had bullet proof wind screens and self sealing fuel tanks.

    Most WW II combat aircraft were armored to some extent or another. The minimum was armor plates behind and / or in front of the crew.

    Some of the very early-war aircraft didn't have armor, which turned out to be a major liability. But almost any military aircraft produced after 1941 or 1942 had at least some. By the middle of the war substantial armor protection for the crew, the engines and the other critical components of aircraft were standard on most combat aircraft. Even the Japanese were putting a lot of steel armor in their fighters and bombers by 1944 - 1945. The other major forms of protection were (rubber lined) self-sealing fuel tanks and bullet-proof windscreens.

    G.
    Last edited by Galloglaich; 2010-02-19 at 09:42 AM.
    “The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools.”

    -Thucydides

    Check out Codex Martialis on 1d4chan

    The Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic - take your RPG to a world you've never been before.

    Codex Martialis- fast paced realistic combat for 3.5 OGL.

  28. - Top - End - #958
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Thiel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Aalborg - Denmark
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Galloglaich View Post
    Both the Lightning and the Thunderbolt had armor plates behind the pilot, all American fighters in WW II did. They also had bullet proof wind screens and self sealing fuel tanks.

    Most WW II combat aircraft were armored to some extent or another. The minimum was armor plates behind and / or in front of the crew.

    Some of the very early-war aircraft didn't have armor, which turned out to be a major liability. But almost any military aircraft produced after 1941 or 1942 had at least some. By the middle of the war substantial armor protection for the crew, the engines and the other critical components of aircraft were standard on most combat aircraft. Even the Japanese were putting a lot of steel armor in their fighters and bombers by 1944 - 1945. The other major forms of protection were (rubber lined) self-sealing fuel tanks and bullet-proof windscreens.

    G.
    It was the Thunderbolt I was thinking about. Turns out that the cockpit was well enough armoured to the point where they became practically immune to 7mm gunfire from behind. A number of anecdotes mentions Bf 109's running out of ammo without downing it or wounding the pilot.



    Calcifer the Fire Demon by Djinn_In_Tonic

  29. - Top - End - #959
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by fusilier View Post
    I've never actually seen an RPG that accounts for the fact that splinters from most fragmentation devices can be of various sizes, and it's something I've puzzled over.
    Don't most of them roll for damage? Wouldn't that cover it? If the damage from a grenade "hit" is random, part of that randomness could easily be taken to model different fragment sizes.
    My favorite exchange:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Betty
    If your idea of fun is to give the players whatever they want, then I suggest you take out a board game called: CANDY LAND and use that for your gaming sessions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dervag
    Obviously, you have never known the frustration of being stranded in the Molasses Swamp.
    _______
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikeavelli View Post
    Physics is a dame of culture and sophistication. She'll take you in, keep you warm at night, provide all kinds of insight into yourself and the world you never find on your own.

  30. - Top - End - #960
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Neon Knight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wichita, Kansas
    Gender
    Male

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

    A quick question: How does the 7.62x54mmR round stack up against the 7.62x51mm NATO? I've often heard that the 7.62x54mmR is in the same general class as the .30-06, and the .30-06 usually seems to be somewhat comparable to the 7.62x51mm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •