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

[Brainfart]

A friend of mine works in the knife sharpening business, and got into old school swordsmithing as a hobby, so not using modern tools beyond a modern forge. I guarantee it would take an experienced person no more than a day. In general, the old school steps are...
Heat metal, pour into mould, let cool into rough shape. Reheat that piece of metal, pound it into correct shape, temper. Grind to achieve edge on a grinding wheel, do details such as hilt, pommel, handle, grip, etc.
This is assuming that the smith is starting with decent steel or processed iron to begin with, not just iron ore. If the smith is starting with ore, the ore must be processed first, I'm not sure how long that took in the old days. As for mastercraft, it might be a pet project of the smiths, taking as long as a week. People also forget that detailing is a part of the mastercraft description, and not all the time has to do with the weapon directly. Mastercraft weapons are prettier than regular.

Wait, what? Casting a sword? I call bull****.

Swordmaking was a fairly labour intensive process, but it's made a lot simpler by employing an assembly line approach. Each craftsman would have his own speciality e.g. tempering, sharpening, and this sped up the process while maintaining quality. Master swordsmiths that ran one-person outfits would have been run out of business pretty damn quick.

There was a fair amount of trade between established cities as well. We know of at least one surviving example of a sword that had the blade smithed in a known manufacturing centre in Germany (Passau, IIRC) and had the fittings installed based on the customer's specifications in Italy.

[fusilier]

Wait, what? Casting a sword? I call bull****.

Hehe. "The sword in the stone"

Apparently bronze swords were cast in stone molds. I really don't know anything more than that. I'm waiting for the more knowledgeable people to speak up. I'm interested to hear how many man hours it might take to make a sword, and I'm sure that varied by the technology employed.

[fusilier]

Because the weight of additional guns and armor was negligible compared to the weight of the ammunition (which was being used up in the course of the mission, thus presumably restoring the aircraft's performance to better match its unladen bomber brethren), I take it?

What I remember reading about the YB-40 was that the ammunition was the main culprit that was weighing them down. You can count on a bomber to drop it's entire payload, but the expenditure of small arms ammunition was probably erratic. Also, even if they did expend most of the ammunition, it would be "parceled out" over the course of the mission, and not dumped all at once.

. . . c) seem to have been primarily opposed by Bf109s, the most common marks of which were significantly under-gunned.

I believe that most E-variants had a pair of 20mm cannon, and most later variants had a single nose mounted one (although I think sometimes 15mm and 30mm could be used). I'm not sure if I would call that under-gunned. Also later variants were sometimes fitted with a pair of extra cannons under the wings.

Lastly: flight sims, even "realistic" ones, inevitably reflect the prejudices of the games' designers rather than reality. While fun, they are not exactly reliable reference works. (This can be generalized to apply to all wargaming, in fact, including that carried out by military professionals. It can be a useful tool, but one wrong assumption can skew your results enough to render them worse than useless.)

There is a flight sim called Targetware that I used to play. It was interesting because the community developed all the modules for it. I did a little bit of scenario design and some skins, but I did get to see some interesting "behind the scenes" look at how the flight models were put together. The problem with prejudices isn't just the game designers', it's their sources. They can be biased and unreliable. Some of the designers simply gathered all the possible technical information they could (weight distribution, the weight of individual components, wing plan, engine horsepower), threw that into the model and hoped that the performance matched their data. Usually, they had to tweak aspects so that the planes were flyable. The flight engine, invariably, had it's limitations. Then there were tons of complaints about the damage model in the Mediterranean theater. Strangely, it wasn't a problem in the Pacific theater mod -- all the lightly built, cannon armed aircraft, were going up against the heavily built mg-only armed aircraft (usually), and it all worked out. However the biggest problem I had was the "abuse" of flaps in the game. It turned out there was a bug in the code and flaps generated more lift at high deflections than they should, and much less drag. Combined with a fairly wide over-speeding margin, many of the Allied planes could totally abuse this bug. I remember being out-turned in an Italian bi-plane by a P-40! I was really disappointed because prior to that the successful pilots typically had to resort to real world tactics, and I was learning from them . . . :-( The system had other good aspects too, depending upon your point of view. Proper engine management was necessary to prevent your engine from overheating in combat (realistic, yes, do most game players care . . .?).

At any rate, I think Philistine is right to be wary of flight sims, although the designers typically take authenticity very seriously, there's just no real way to ensure it. People will remember stories, and depending upon where you live those stories will typically paint a different picture of the relative performance of these aircraft. When data from both sides of an aerial fight is available, it's often amazing how wrong the eye-witness accounts can be!

[Brainfart]

Ach, should have clarified. I was referring to steel swords.

I'm not even sure that bronze swords can be tempered and worked in the same way as steel blades though.

[Subotei]

I should add though to be fair, the armor protection on a bomber is of limited value since many of the crew will be exposed from many directions, as you can see in that chart. The navigator / nose gunner has no protection from the front, none of the crew have protection from above or below etc. And both heavy (12.7 mm or bigger) machine guns (especially with AP ammo) and heavy AAA (88 mm or 90 mm and etc.) were powerful enough to punch through that armor.

The flak jackets helped a little, but not enough. Waist gunners who wore them had one of the highest KIA rates. Being a bomber crewman was very, very dangerous. That is why the 8th Air Force alone lost 47,000 casualties and 26,000 dead in World War II. (and a total of over 10,000 aircraft shot down.) They were also very, very dangerous to attack, especially US heavy and medium bombers. The luftwaffe had it's back broken by the 8th AF. It was attrition warfare... almost like trench warfare in the skies.

The impact of german flak during WWII was questionable - fighters were much more effective. Heavy concentrations could defend a few key points, but the effect was more psychological - it put air crews off rather than preventing the attack, and for morale of the people on the ground. I read somewhere (Heinz Maenheimer I think) that a German report at the time showed they shot down approximately 1 bomber per 16,000 88mm rounds fired with the Flak 36. After 1943 the improved Flak 41 model brought this down to 1 per 8,000 rounds. I would argue those 88mm rounds would've been better expended on battlefields than shot into the air.

The Germans never invented the proximity fuse - a key invention for AA. A study after the V1 bombardment showed that the British, with proximity fuzing and radar guided guns, which the germans did use, brought down V1's (a much harder target to hit than a bomber formation) with an average of 77 rounds (Dr RV Jones). Thats was finally effective flak.

The point of armouring bombers was not to protect the crew, but to ensure the aircraft could complete the mission - armouring key components and the pilots so that the plane could make it to the target and back with a reasonable chance of success and a decent bomb load: more armour = less bombs. The high kill rate of waist gunners can probably be explained by the fact they weren't in an area of the plane that needed armour.

Unescorted bombers on daylight raids were very vulnerable despite their defensive weapons - it wasn't until the Mustang was introduced to escort the formations that they made any inroad into the German fighter defences. It would be interesting to study what would've been the impact of flying with fewer defensive weapons (and therefore crew) on aircraft loss rates and casualty rates.

[Yora]

I can't answer any of those very well. But what I can say is that D&D was not made with anything but adventuring in mind, and the crafting and economic rules presented in the books are utterly useless for simulating any kind of reality.

If it's really important that these things work in your campaign world, you'll have to redo a lot of things. Possibly remake the entire wealth system, since even low-level adventurers are the equivalent of millionaires. As someone pointed out in the 'your wealth in chickens' thread a while ago, it costs something like 2,000 chickens just to get the simple kind of lock you'd want to keep your chickens safe.

My real problem was, that the 1sp per day wage seems rediculously low. But as 10g coin of solid gold does not sound quite right either, I thought about changing all the item prices into sp while keeping the amounts the same. Which I know think I'll really do.
15 days wages for a simple laborer to buy a sword doesn't sound that far off, and 32 gold pieces for a masterwork weapon is also rather okay. Of course still not realistically accurate, but much better than having a 15 year old 1st level rogue start with a bag of gold coins for which he would need to work for 3 years without spending anything.

[Eldan]

I just converted that to how much money the worker has to spare after paying for food and housing. Items are still too expensive, though.

[Zom B]

How popular was what I call the "reverse grip" (holding the weapon by the handle, but with the blade end coming out of the bottom of the grip, such as wielding a knife for stabbing) for larger-than-knife weapons? I've seen it in movies (oh yeah, great source of historical accuracy there), and while it seems awfully handy for stabbing or defending against an opponent that is beside you, it seems unwieldy. I mean, to block a blow coming at your head or neck (as a lot of blows tried to come), you'd have to either raise the sword way over your head to get the blade in line for the strike or at an awkard position in general.

[Britter]

How popular was what I call the "reverse grip" (holding the weapon by the handle, but with the blade end coming out of the bottom of the grip, such as wielding a knife for stabbing) for larger-than-knife weapons? I've seen it in movies (oh yeah, great source of historical accuracy there), and while it seems awfully handy for stabbing or defending against an opponent that is beside you, it seems unwieldy. I mean, to block a blow coming at your head or neck (as a lot of blows tried to come), you'd have to either raise the sword way over your head to get the blade in line for the strike or at an awkard position in general.

Over the course of 15 years of studying kenjutsu and iaido, I have only seen that grip used on a few specific draws designed to be used in situations where the opponent is too close for you to draw in a more conventional manner. In my expirience the reverse grip is almost immediately shifted to a conventional grip. I don't think any school uses it as a primary method, because you negate your reach advantage and don't gain any signifigant mechanical cutting advantage or defensive advantage. In fact, I would argue that you lose considerable mechanical advantage with the configuration.

I would never attempt to fight using such a grip, on the off chance I am ever in a sword fight.

With a knife things are different, and the reverse grip is a very effective tool in the knife-fighters aresenal.

[Brainfart]

In my (admittedly limited) experience with European swordsmanship, it doesn't make an appearance in any major manuscript.

It's actually an incredibly crappy way of using a sword. You're not making use of its full length and cutting ability, and you have next to no ability to generate power.

[Fhaolan]

Wait, what? Casting a sword? I call bull****.

Historically, some steel swords were cast as well, especially in the areas currently known as Turkey and Spain. These areas have access to high-quality steel which can allow for this. It's casting blanks for material removal. i.e. cast a lump of metal of the right dimensions and grind away everything that is not sword. It still needs a lot of forge-work for tempering and annealing, but it does work. Only if you can start with that high-quality steel, of course.

[Philistine]

I believe that most E-variants had a pair of 20mm cannon, and most later variants had a single nose mounted one (although I think sometimes 15mm and 30mm could be used). I'm not sure if I would call that under-gunned. Also later variants were sometimes fitted with a pair of extra cannons under the wings.

The Bf109E was already being replaced by the Bf109F by the time of Barbarossa, and the Bf109F was massively undergunned with 2x 7.92mm MG and 1x15mm or 20mm cannon (depending on the exact mark). The Bf109G was by far the most common version of the aircraft, with the G-5/G-6 models by themselves accounting for 12000+ units (nearly half of total production of the type); most Gs were armed with 2x13mm MG and 1x20mm cannon. Better than the F certainly, but still awfully light by 1943 standards. Additional 20mm could be carried under the wings, but these had a very adverse effect on performance and were not popular.

[fusilier]

The Bf109E was already being replaced by the Bf109F by the time of Barbarossa, and the Bf109F was massively undergunned with 2x 7.92mm MG and 1x15mm or 20mm cannon (depending on the exact mark). The Bf109G was by far the most common version of the aircraft, with the G-5/G-6 models by themselves accounting for 12000+ units (nearly half of total production of the type); most Gs were armed with 2x13mm MG and 1x20mm cannon. Better than the F certainly, but still awfully light by 1943 standards. Additional 20mm could be carried under the wings, but these had a very adverse effect on performance and were not popular.

Sticking with the G-model for now. Light compared to what? 2x20 mm cannons? I mean American fighters in 1943 might sport 4 or 6 .50 caliber mgs (rarely 8). British fighters typically carried 2x20mm cannons plus maybe 4 .50 or .303 mgs, all in the wings. I don't know what was typical on Russian fighters at the time, though. Anyway, the thinking is that it's generally better to have a bigger gun, than more smaller guns, but this isn't always practical. Outside of the P-38 and P-39 (both designed as bomber interceptors), the US generally felt that 4-6 .50 brownings was sufficient, rather than have to deal with exploding 20mm ammo. Bigger guns tend to have a slower cyclic rate, and if they are synchronized this problem can be exacerbated.

I've heard that pilots of the (later model) 109's liked the fact that the armament was all concentrated in the nose. Convergence ranges weren't nearly as important as an aircraft with the armament in the wings. (Convergence ranges are still important because of the different ballistics of the 20 mm cannon and the 13 mm guns, but it's not as drastic as the convergence range for wing mounted weaponry).

The extra cannon pods were usually fitted (to the best of my knowledge) for taking down the big bombers, although I suppose they could also be useful for ground sorties. You are right that the extra weight and drag affected the performance.

To the best of my knowledge, the heaviest armament on most fighters would be 2x20mm cannon, plus some number of mgs (I know some of the late war Italian aircraft might have 3 cannon, ground attack Hurricanes could have 4). I think the nose mounted armament probably helped compensate for the reduced weaponry. It may have been a bit weak for taking down large bombers, but for dealing with other fighters, it was probably sufficient.

[Hurlbut]

Hm? Whatever happen to the 30mm cannon for the 109G?

[Fortinbras]

Does anyone know anything about the Jewish Infantry Brigade Group or the 400 Jewish volunteers who fought in Libya in the battle of Bir-el Harmat.

[Daosus]

My real problem was, that the 1sp per day wage seems rediculously low. But as 10g coin of solid gold does not sound quite right either, I thought about changing all the item prices into sp while keeping the amounts the same. Which I know think I'll really do.
15 days wages for a simple laborer to buy a sword doesn't sound that far off, and 32 gold pieces for a masterwork weapon is also rather okay. Of course still not realistically accurate, but much better than having a 15 year old 1st level rogue start with a bag of gold coins for which he would need to work for 3 years without spending anything.

The real problem is that you're trying to apply a modern paradigm to a historic period which does not follow that paradigm. You are used to having and using money. Most people during the medieval period which gaming is based on did not have access to money. They operated on a very localized barter economy. Farmers would literally trade food for goods and services they needed.

In DnD, money is used as a measure of character power, and is essentially divorced from its economic function in the game world. If you really want to have an equivalent for money, use "pound of wheat" as the measurement, and set it at something like 0.01-0.1 cp. Then, extrapolate the prices. The price lists in the game books are anachronistic and don't make sense if you think too hard.

[Galloglaich]

Sword makers were highly paid, high-standing members of the community ... and normally wouldn't be paid by the day but by the weapons they produced. In most cases they would be part of a powerful guild.

The whole economic and currency system of DnD is ridiculous.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Because the weight of additional guns and armor was negligible compared to the weight of the ammunition (which was being used up in the course of the mission, thus presumably restoring the aircraft's performance to better match its unladen bomber brethren), I take it?

Fusilier addressed this one pretty well already I think.

Adding weight - whether armor, fuel, or whatever - decreased performance. Add enough weight of armor, and the performance drop makes you so much easier to hit that it doesn't matter how many hits you can take. That's assuming you still can still squeeze out enough range/payload to perform the mission at all at that point - because if not, you might as well have been shot down for all the damage you're doing to the enemy.

Of course there is a tradeoff. And yet as the war went on and battlefield experience increased, they added more and more armor to aircraft. So obviously they felt that there was a good reason for it.

One of the chief advantages was in protecting aircrew. Since aiir combat rapidly turned into a type of attrition warfare, a small performance hit from armor which meant that your trained aircrew would survive a high percentage of shoot-downs, meant that you would have many more pilots six months or a year down the road than your opponent. This was the lesson the Japanese learned the hard way (and too late) in the Pacific Theater. The Wildcats and P-40s they faced were arguably marginally inferior in terms of overall performance, but the Allied pilots had a 200% or 300% higher likelihood of surviving being shot down or damaged in combat. This paid big dividends.

With all due respect, I think it's you that's missing the point. Where did I say, or even suggest, that aircraft should be armored against tank weapons? What do you think I meant by "own-caliber"? Why do you think I specifically mentioned protecting against fifty-cal and twenty mike-mike, which by 1942 were the predominant weapons of fighter aircraft?

The armor on these aircraft was good protection against .50 and 20mm, and the big armor plate behind the pilot deflected most of the bullets shot at fighters in particular (from the six o'clock) and protected the most vital systems (the pilot and the engine). The self-sealing fuel tanks were equally important.

aircraft that were hit and survived did so not because of their armor, which most hits never impinged upon, but because of other factors - most notably strength of airframe, but also size.

You are incorrect. The armor played a huge role in the survival of the pilot (especially), without which the aircraft would not fly. Strength of the airframe was important but didn't matter much of the pilot and the engine were riddled with bullets.

Meanwhile, you seem to be basing your argument on the Il-2;

No, the Il2 is just one of the more extreme examples of where armor was increased well past the point of affecting performance which still paidd off; but that was due to it's role as a ground attack aircraft. It's spectacular success was almost entirely due to the armor, but it was hardly unique for aircraft in that role.

The armor on standard fighters and bombers, while less extensive, was primarily designed to cope with air-to-air gunnery, and also proved effective (and absolutely vital for any combat aircraft)

I would liken the difference to that between an EOD ordinance removal crewman (armored head to toe) and an ordinary infantryman (armored with torso body armor and helmet). Just because the latter doesn't cover the entire body doesn't mean it isn't tactically significant.

but the Il-2 is a) hardly representative of the general case, b) still vulnerable - especially to engine, radiator, and pilot hits,

Not very, the pilot, radiator and engine were heavily protected in the Il2. Especially the pilot who was surrounded by a 'bathtub' of steel armor and bullet proof glass.

but also to general airframe damage, and c) seem to have been primarily opposed by Bf109s, the most common marks of which were significantly under-gunned.

Fusilier addressed this, the Me 109 was not under-gunned. Only certain marks of the Franz were somewhat light, but 20mm cannon in the prop-spinner is always a very lethal weapon, and the E carried two 20mm in the wings and the G combined 20mm with 13mm Machine guns and / or extra 20mm in the wings; many marks even carried the ridiculous 30mm.

Also, the Il2 was contemporaneous with the Fw 190 which was one of the most heavily armed fighters in the war.

Apparently this is going to come as a shock to you, but I actually do have some slight familiarity

I'm glad, but if you have read the first hand accounts of pilots like Galland, Boyington, Rudel, Clive Caldwell, etc. etc. you will have read many accounts of the armor protecting thhe pilots. Of course it never seems like enough, but it made a huge difference.

Lastly: flight sims, even "realistic" ones, inevitably reflect the prejudices of the games' designers rather than reality.

I know I'm standing on quicksand to defend a flight sim in this context, but there are flight simulators and then there is Il2. All I can say is, if you try that game out, (and it aint easy, it will take you weeks just to learn to takeoff and land most of these aircraft in full-realism, let alone fight online against human opponents) I can guarantee you will learn a lot about flying and WW II aviation. The ballistics and damage model are particularly remarkable.

The game is popular with a lot of WW II veterans, it's the only flight sim that really was as far as I know.

By the same token, the fragments also will not necessarily hit the aircraft from behind - which is the only direction from which most of the crew received any armor protection at all.

From behind is where most damage from fighters is likely to occur.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Historically, some steel swords were cast as well, especially in the areas currently known as Turkey and Spain. These areas have access to high-quality steel which can allow for this. It's casting blanks for material removal. i.e. cast a lump of metal of the right dimensions and grind away everything that is not sword. It still needs a lot of forge-work for tempering and annealing, but it does work. Only if you can start with that high-quality steel, of course.

Do you have any sources for casting iron or steel swords ? In what time period are you talking about?

My understanding was that the blast furnace didn't appear in Europe until the Medieval period, and I'd never heard of cast steel weapons in the pre-industrial era.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Fusilier I think you have a good analysis here, I'm just going to add a few points.

Sticking with the G-model for now. Light compared to what? 2x20 mm cannons? I mean American fighters in 1943 might sport 4 or 6 .50 caliber mgs (rarely 8). British fighters typically carried 2x20mm cannons plus maybe 4 .50 or .303 mgs, all in the wings. I don't know what was typical on Russian fighters at the time, though.

British fighters usually 2 x 20mm plus either 4 x .303 OR 2 x 12.7mm

Russian fighters almost all had a small number of large guns with very little ammo. Typical is one 20mm gun in the prop-spinner and maybe 1 or 2 machine guns, originally 7.62 later 12.7mm. The later marks of the La5 family had 2 x 23mm in the engine cowling. They liked to shoot from very close in, part of how they fought. This system incidentally really paid off by the second half of the war (1943 onward) in which they had a qualitative advantage over the German fighters.

They also had a very fast firing (kind of like a gatling gun) 7.62 MG which was used on some of their early fighters (I-16) which allowed more of a 'spray and pray' tactic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ShKAS_machine_gun

Anyway, the thinking is that it's generally better to have a bigger gun, than more smaller guns, but this isn't always practical. Outside of the P-38 and P-39 (both designed as bomber interceptors), the US generally felt that 4-6 .50 brownings was sufficient, rather than have to deal with exploding 20mm ammo. Bigger guns tend to have a slower cyclic rate, and if they are synchronized this problem can be exacerbated.

This is true, the bigger guns (cannon) are shorter ranged than the .50s. It's a different approach to marksmanship. German and Russian fighters tended to shoot a small number of heavy cannon rounds from very close range. Their guns shot a few rounds (2 or 3 round bursts) but were very accurate being mostly in the nose.

Most US fighters by contrast had a lot of heavy machine guns in the wings (4-6 12.7mm as you pointed out) which had a longer range but far less accuracy, but also a lot of ammunition. They became particularly effective when the right mix of armor piercing, tracer, and incendiary bullets was discovered.

This is one of the things you can clearly see in Il2 which is borne out by WW II stats and pilot accounts. The wing mounted .50's reflected a more 'spray and pray' tactic, the wing-mounted guns have a much wider dispersion, and used larger bursts (7-8 rounds per gun, instead of 2-3, with six guns maybe 40 or 50 rounds downrange, but often only a few rounds hit). This was actually pioneered by the English with their 8 wing mounted .303s, (later 12 in the Mk IIb Hurricane). Both approaches were effective. The 12.7mm round, particularly with AP ammo, was better at punching through pilot armor and punching holes in engines, the 20mm cannon were better at destroying the aircrafts structure (tearing off wings or blowing the tail off etc.)

It's not surprising the P-39 was popular with the Russians, since it's heavy nose-gun armament suited their fighting style.

I've heard that pilots of the (later model) 109's liked the fact that the armament was all concentrated in the nose. Convergence ranges weren't nearly as important as an aircraft with the armament in the wings. (Convergence ranges are still important because of the different ballistics of the 20 mm cannon and the 13 mm guns, but it's not as drastic as the convergence range for wing mounted weaponry).

Agreed 100%, this is again very evident in Il2. Guns in the nose, especially the prop spinner, means a higher percentage of each burst lands on target.

The extra cannon pods were usually fitted (to the best of my knowledge) for taking down the big bombers, although I suppose they could also be useful for ground sorties. You are right that the extra weight and drag affected the performance.

There were many, many different options for arming the Me 109s, including the nose guns which could also be changed in the field. They also had the Mk 108 (30mm) available in the G model.

To the best of my knowledge, the heaviest armament on most fighters would be 2x20mm cannon, plus some number of mgs (I know some of the late war Italian aircraft might have 3 cannon, ground attack Hurricanes could have 4). I think the nose mounted armament probably helped compensate for the reduced weaponry. It may have been a bit weak for taking down large bombers, but for dealing with other fighters, it was probably sufficient.

Basically yeah. The Hurri IIC had four 20mm, which was a first (though very little ammo) as did the Typhoon and Tempest. The on paper small armamenet of the P-38 was considered very strong in the war, because all the guns were in the nose. The P-47 famously had 8 12.7mm which was very strong. The P-39 had a very powerful 37mm which only the Russians seemed to figure out how to use.

On the Axis side, the BF 110 had two 20mm plus four 7.92mm MGs, all in the nosoe, which was quite strong armament, the Fw 190A had the four 20mm in the wings and nose plus machine guns, the Fw 190D had two 20mm plus two 13mm (in the nose) which is also quite strong. Some versions of the Me 109G had the Mk 108 30mm, which was devestating. Several of the excellent but rare late model Japanese fighters like the N1K1 "Shiden-Kai" and J2M "Raiden" had four 20mm cannons. The superb but even more rare late war Italian fighters like the Fiat G55 "Centauro" had the very heavy armamement of 3 20mm and 4 12.7mm!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_N1K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G55

The most powerful single seat day-fighter armament I know of was the four 30mm on the Me 262, though several of the 'heavy' fighters and night fighters had multiple cannons and even 50mm guns etc.

G.

[Fhaolan]

Do you have any sources for casting iron or steel swords ? In what time period are you talking about?

My understanding was that the blast furnace didn't appear in Europe until the Medieval period, and I'd never heard of cast steel weapons in the pre-industrial era.

G.

Crucible furnaces for casting steel is mentioned in Islamic writings since at least the 8th century. [as published in several papers by A. Feuerbach around 1997 or so, based on archeological research from Merv, Turkmenistan], and apparantly there is something written by a Jabir ibn Hayyan in the 8th century that indicates that crucible steel was used for casting blades. [as published by B. Bronson, 1986: The Making and Selling of Wootz, a Crucible Steel of India]. I, personally, can't make heads or tails out of the original documents as I can't read arabic.

It looks like I was mistaken about the Spain bit, I had misremembered a document that had talked about crucible technology being brought to Spain during the Muslim occupation from 711-1234. It did not, however, mention sword blades being cast from those furnaces, just that the steel was used to *make* swords. My oppologies.

[Galloglaich]

Crucible furnaces for casting steel is mentioned in Islamic writings since at least the 8th century. [as published in several papers by A. Feuerbach around 1997 or so, based on archeological research from Merv, Turkmenistan], and apparantly there is something written by a Jabir ibn Hayyan in the 8th century that indicates that crucible steel was used for casting blades. [as published by B. Bronson, 1986: The Making and Selling of Wootz, a Crucible Steel of India]. I, personally, can't make heads or tails out of the original documents as I can't read arabic.

It looks like I was mistaken about the Spain bit, I had misremembered a document that had talked about crucible technology being brought to Spain during the Muslim occupation from 711-1234. It did not, however, mention sword blades being cast from those furnaces, just that the steel was used to *make* swords. My oppologies.

I think I can explain this, the crucible steel in question is ultra-high carbon wootz or ukku steel from India and Sri Lanka. It was actually used in Spain before the Reconquista, so you are not misremembering. It actually goes back to the 3rd Century BC, it's not cast it's a very special method of smelting while infusing a higher than the normal amount of carbon, this is the same steel which is today called "Damascus" steel because Damascus Syria became a center of sword production using this steel which had been imported from India. Wootz steel was the most sought after metal for making weapons for over 1000 years, and was traded in billets all around the Mediterranean, Eastern Europe and Asia, including to Toledo in Spain where it was used to make the finest quality swords that they could manufacture.

Wootz steel is a complex subject in it's own right, but the wiki gives you a good start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wootz_steel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucible_steel

Many people around the world used Wootz steel, when they could get it. It has been found in Viking weapons, Russian weapons, Japanese weapons, Chinese, Persian, Arab and Moorish / Spanish and even Indonesian and Filipino weapons. It didn't really get to Wesern Europe outside of Spain and Scandinavia until the Renaissance, when it became very popular for a while and influenced the popularity of 'watered' or 'damask' fabrics. Later it was used for gun barrels.

Modern tests on wootz steel swords revealed that they had carbon nano-wires and nano-tubes in them.

They apparently lost the ability to make it in the 18th Century..

G.

[fusilier]

This is one of the things you can clearly see in Il2 which is borne out by WW II stats and pilot accounts. The wing mounted .50's reflected a more 'spray and pray' tactic, the wing-mounted guns have a much wider dispersion, and used larger bursts (7-8 rounds per gun, instead of 2-3, with six guns maybe 40 or 50 rounds downrange, but often only a few rounds hit). This was actually pioneered by the English with their 8 wing mounted .303s, (later 12 in the Mk IIb Hurricane). Both approaches were effective.

I think the important thing to stress about wing mounted guns is that they are set to converge at a particular range (the pilots typically adjusted it to suit themselves), if the target isn't at that precise range, your going to have a lot more spray.

The superb but even more rare late war Italian fighters like the Fiat G55 "Centauro" had the very heavy armamement of 3 20mm and 4 12.7mm!

There was a version with 5 20mm cannons, but I don't know if it was produced in any significant numbers. The Germans considered building that plane under license, because its thick wing form could support a large number of cannons. It was also one of the few fighter airframes that could be adapted to the powerful DB 603 engine (the Fiat G56), but it was never produced.

Italian 12.7mm guns must be treated somewhat carefully. While the Breda machine gun itself was based on the Browning .50 caliber, the cartridge was based on the British Vickers .50. This is a weaker round (shorter cartridge = less propellant), so it's armor piercing qualities aren't as good. The Italians used a mix of tracers, ap, and an exploding 12.7mm round (using a PETN I think). Some sources are dismissive of it's capability, but the Italian pilots liked to use the exploding round in a ratio of about 1-to-4 IIRC. Also I think the Breda gun was slower firing then other .50 caliber guns.

Agreed 100%, this is again very evident in Il2. Guns in the nose, especially the prop spinner, means a higher percentage of each burst lands on target.

Targetware is good about this too. I remember flying early war scenarios in various Italian fighters, and using those nose guns to ping faster allied fighters at long range. :-) It wouldn't hurt them, but it may cause them to break and turn back on me so I had chance of catching them. The early war Italian fighters only had a pair of 12.7mm Breda-Safats in the nose, but lots of ammo for them, and ammo counters.

[Zom B]

Another sword question: What does a stance like this one do for you? It seems like it would be too predictable where your sword is going first: straight down in a chopping motion or in an awkward slice. Also, leaving your chest wide open seems strange to me.

[Fortinbras]

What are the relative merits of the Fairbairn Sykes compaired to, say, the K-bar.

[Telok]

Another sword question: What does a stance like this one do for you? It seems like it would be too predictable where your sword is going first: straight down in a chopping motion or in an awkward slice. Also, leaving your chest wide open seems strange to me.

Watch Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai" to understand that match. Alternately, go to your local college and take some kendo classes.

In modern fencing, yes, that stance would be a death wish. In kendo it's a very confidant pose. I'm at work so I can't do the proper links or a long discussion, but it is a legitimate set up.

[Galloglaich]

Another sword question: What does a stance like this one do for you? It seems like it would be too predictable where your sword is going first: straight down in a chopping motion or in an awkward slice. Also, leaving your chest wide open seems strange to me.

That stance is equivalent to Vom Tag in German fencing. It's an offensive stance, and one of the most versatile guards, you can attack from below, from above, from either side, and in every case your attack can also be a defense, either simultaneously (single-time counter, like a zwerchau) or in a two-beat move (double-time counter, like a krumphau)... or you can immediately transition into a defensive guard and set-aside an attack (absetsen). In fact all of the Miesterhau (Master Cuts) in the German system can be made from Vom Tag.

This type of stance has the advantage of making it harder for the opponent to judge the distance.

It's probably slightly more versatile in European fencing since you have two-edged swords and can attack with the false edge, but in Japanese fencing (which has almost all of the same opening attacks) you just turn the blade to reverse your attack.

When I have some more time I'll find some sparring videos so you can see how this type of stance works.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Watch Kurosawa's "The Seven Samurai" to understand that match. Alternately, go to your local college and take some kendo classes.

Yeah the duel from seven Samurai is a good example,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuqwtFwJ7V4

that cut is exactly the same as a "Zornhau" in German Renaissance fencing, same triangle or slope step (to step offline) same cutting from guard to guard and everything. There are a lot of similarities between European longsword fencing and Japanese fencing.

In modern fencing, yes, that stance would be a death wish. In kendo it's a very confidant pose. I'm at work so I can't do the proper links or a long discussion, but it is a legitimate set up.

Yeah, it's a very confident pose in any fight if you are using a sword you can cut with, not just in Kendo. In modern olympic-style fencing you wouldn't use that stance, there are actually some guards like that in rapier but most are point-forward since it's heavily thrusting oriented.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Another sword question: What does a stance like this one do for you? It seems like it would be too predictable where your sword is going first: straight down in a chopping motion or in an awkward slice. Also, leaving your chest wide open seems strange to me.

Here is a clip of some skilled HEMA fencers doing German longsword techniques, you will see both of them using that Vom Tag ('from above') guard effectively, and you can see the interplay between that guard and other guards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bZWu...978132&index=0

G.

[Galloglaich]

Targetware is good about this too. I remember flying early war scenarios in various Italian fighters, and using those nose guns to ping faster allied fighters at long range. :-) It wouldn't hurt them, but it may cause them to break and turn back on me so I had chance of catching them. The early war Italian fighters only had a pair of 12.7mm Breda-Safats in the nose, but lots of ammo for them, and ammo counters.

Those early Italian fighters can be a lot of fun in those Sims... somewhat under-powered and under-armed, but as you say, those 12.7mm nose guns hit hard, they are also agile and retain E well, they can dive and... germain to the conversation, they have a lot of armor especially for an early war fighter.

In Il2 I find the Macci M.C. 200 can be a pretty lethal if you know how to fly it (and how to aim those nose guns) the Fiat G.50 seems even more under-powered and more twitchy in the handling but it turns better, and retains E very well... it's more of a challenge to fly but in the hands of a good pilot who knows the aircraft it can be very effective as well. The Finns did pretty well with it.

The CR 42 on the other hand seems like one of the worst of the biplanes, it's wings are so short it doesn't turn well.. what is the point of a biplane that turns like a bus? The Gladiator and the I-153 both seem to own it (especially the latter)... but it does have those heavy-hitting 12.7mm guns which, maybe not as good as an American .50 cal but they hit harder than any of those early war rifle caliber machine guns most of the other 1939 / 1940 era fighters have. You don't want to go in a head-on pass with a Cr 42 in a Gladiator.

G.