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

[Matthew]

Nice little chat here about halberds and pole-arms. I was not aware that the bardiche arose from a combination musket rest pole-axe. Anybody able to confirm or deny this?

[Fhaolan]

Nice little chat here about halberds and pole-arms. I was not aware that the bardiche arose from a combination musket rest pole-axe. Anybody able to confirm or deny this?

I've heard that one myself, but... it doesn't seem right to me. I thought bardiche-like weapons were around long before firearms, but I might be wrong.

[Mr White]

I, also, thought that the bardiche was one of the first pole-arms in use. So way before muskets.


On the M16 vs. AK47:
As I remember from previous discussions on this (they seem to pop up regularly), you can't really compare the 2 as they were designed with a different doctrine behind them. M16 had to fit the one-shot-one kill doctrine while the AK47 had to be easy to manufacture and all purpose (or something like that).

[Rion]

I'm not by any means as big a weapons or history expert as others in this thread, butfrom my understanding the Bardiche was used long before the musket, and the guys at Osprey Publishing seems to agree because IIRC they have pictures of medieval russian soldiers armed with bardiches.

[Dervag]

The AK-47 was the successor to the WWII-era submachine guns; the Soviet assault doctrine involved large numbers of infantry blasting submachine gun fire at the enemy until they could get to point blank range, rather than having the infantry try to hang back and pick off defenders from long range. In their experience, most soldiers weren't hitting anything out past 100 meters or so anyway, so any long-range combat would fall on the artillery, the machine guns, and probably designated sharpshooters. Thus, the basic infantry rifle didn't have to be accurate under Soviet doctrine.

[blackseven]

It depends a lot on how many cinch points you have in the maille hauberk. Most of the time, the bulk of the weight is on the shoulders. If you cinch the belt enough you can transfer the weight below that belt to your waist. Some hauberk styles are shorter, with maille leggings (chauces) that are strapped to your waist via braces. I've seen people add additional strapping to cinch the arms and legs up, so those weights are distributed across their limbs better.

In addition, part of the trick to plate harnesses is that as the plates are all solid, they can be made of varying thickness depending on the exact amount of protection needed at any point. Plates can be made thinner where they overlap, for one example. This changes the weight distribution considerably.

Thanks for that! I was thinking about this again the other day, and was wondering if there was a good resource (hopefully online, or relatively easy to purchase) for learning more about the basics of medieval European armor. I'd particularly like to see how later plate armors were actually strapped to the wearer to see how the weight was distributed, and how much (or little) it would appear to impede movement.

[Thane of Fife]

I'm not by any means as big a weapons or history expert as others in this thread, butfrom my understanding the Bardiche was used long before the musket, and the guys at Osprey Publishing seems to agree because IIRC they have pictures of medieval russian soldiers armed with bardiches.

The Russian Streltzy were around in the late Middle Ages, and are probably the individuals most famous for using their Bardiches as musket rests.

EDIT: Or, gun rests, rather.

[Diamondeye]

The AK-47 was the successor to the WWII-era submachine guns; the Soviet assault doctrine involved large numbers of infantry blasting submachine gun fire at the enemy until they could get to point blank range, rather than having the infantry try to hang back and pick off defenders from long range. In their experience, most soldiers weren't hitting anything out past 100 meters or so anyway, so any long-range combat would fall on the artillery, the machine guns, and probably designated sharpshooters. Thus, the basic infantry rifle didn't have to be accurate under Soviet doctrine.

This proceeds a lot from the nature of the war for the 2 sides as well. Since the U.S. wasn't really at risk of land invasion of its industrial and population heartland, it could take the time to train every soldier reasonably well before committing them to battle. The Soviets couldn't, so their soldiers were generally poorer marksmen unless they already had experience shooting before the war or were naturally good at it or something; hence the submachinegun-swarm doctrine.

They also relied more on numbers in general than the U.S., and that continued post-war. The individual capability of any given soldier or piece of equipment wasn't that important, it was having a lot of them that was important sicne they couldn't keep up with the west technologically anyhow. NATO, on the other hand, both valued its soldiers lives more and realized that it couldn't keep up in numbers anyhow due to various reasons, so they went for making each person and piece of gear as effective and powerful as possible.

This shows up in all areas: tanks, aircraft, even submarines, and the gap in technology gets wider as we get closer to 1991 and the fall of the USSR. Granted, there's certain areas such as SAM systems that they basically keep up with us, but those are to make up deficiencies in areas where they don't (fighter and AEW aircraft) There's also areas where they close the gap in technology a bit, like the late 70's in ground combat gear, but that was because the U.S. missed an entire upgrade cycle on the ground due to Viet Nam, hence the sudden leap forward to the M1, M2, and related systems which are vastly superior to their predecessors as well as expected Soviet opponents at the time.

[Brainfart]

Not directly related, but I found this fantastic thread on ENWorld while clearing out my bookmarks. It's got a heck of a lot of useful information for games where the casters don't excrete platinum ingots from the posterior.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general...-art-rpgs.html

[Rion]

The Russian Streltzy were around in the late Middle Ages, and are probably the individuals most famous for using their Bardiches as musket rests.

EDIT: Or, gun rests, rather.

I know the Streltzy were around in the late Middle Ages, but I was referring to earlier soldiers. Seems like I remembered incorrectly though, the only bardiche in their medieval Russian books is an infantryman (F3 in the 1250-1500 one) from the late middle ages.
Still think what I've says they're earlier, but like I said I could be wrong.

[Fhaolan]

Of course, we may be running into the standard issue of weapon terminology. As in weapons we would think of as earlier bardiches not being counted as bardiches by the relevant 'experts'. For example, the ones used by the Streltsy are cut down so to be the right length to use as gun rests. Does that mean the definition of bardiche is a chopper poleweapon short enough to use as a gun rest? If earlier bardiche-like weapons are longer, do they not count as bardiches?

[Spiryt]

Here are photos of Bardiches from Witebsk dated as XIIth century.

Some source given :

Hetau W.W. (ed) (1993). Archeologija i numizmatyka Bjelarusi – encyklapedja. Minsk: Belaruskaja Encyklapedja

[Matthew]

Not directly related, but I found this fantastic thread on ENWorld while clearing out my bookmarks. It's got a heck of a lot of useful information for games where the casters don't excrete platinum ingots from the posterior.

History, Mythology, Art and RPGs

Interesting thread, though it perpetuates some problematic ideas. The preview for his Codex Martialis is not bad (unlike most RPG weapons compilation books); the writing could stand to be improved in style, and the scholar in me demands footnotes, but definitely seems to be one of the better offerings on the market. Without seeing the whole thing it is hard to know for sure, but it seems to lack any encumbrance values (not strictly necessary) and there does not seem to be much division by period (possibly this is more evident in the actual book). Still, I might fork out $6.00 for a copy at some point. Of course, we get the whole "a long sword isn't a long sword meme", which tends to get on my nerves, implying that there really is a universally accepted nomenclature of weapons surviving intact for a 1,000 years... yeah, I know, I am being overly critical and pet project-y....

Here are photos of Bardiches from Witebsk dated as XIIth century.

Some source given :

Hetau W.W. (ed) (1993). Archeologija i numizmatyka Bjelarusi – encyklapedja. Minsk: Belaruskaja Encyklapedja

That just about cinches it, then. The bardiche was already in existence before it was adapted for use as a combination musket rest and close combat weapon.

That reminds me, I wrote an essay on the use of the bayonet in the early modern period about twelve years ago. It was probably written by hand, but I seem to recall I cribbed most of it from a Cambridge Modern History (maybe a Cambridge Medieval History). Might be worth tracking down.

[HenryHankovitch]

IMO, very, very large swords can be used...consider the size of the large two hander swords of history in comparison to the size of their wielders. Thanks to better nutrition, we get quite a bit larger today than we did historically. On the flip side, average phyiscal conditioning is probably lower. However, assuming a physically fit soldier from the modern era, a very large sword could probably be used. If we allowed the use of modern alloys for better strength/weight ratios, we could probably get even larger.

Historical two-handed greatswords were generally less than 8 lbs total, and the better, "fighting" swords were often no more than 4 lbs:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

The heavier versions are generally the highly ornamented, purely ceremonial type of swords.

As that article points out, "A practical explanation for the futility of especially heavy weapons is that they are slow. In physics terms, doubling the mass of a weapon can provide twice the strike energy, but doubling the velocity of a strike provides four times the energy."

Making a weapon heavier than it has to be, only hurts you in the end. You get less striking power than a lighter weapon, swung faster, and at the same time your weapon becomes more difficult to defend or maneuver with, and more fatiguing when used in a fight.

[Matthew]

Good English Heritage video here: Arming a Fourteenth Century Knight.

[Tyndmyr]

Making a weapon heavier than it has to be, only hurts you in the end. You get less striking power than a lighter weapon, swung faster, and at the same time your weapon becomes more difficult to defend or maneuver with, and more fatiguing when used in a fight.

This is true, but size /= weight. Titanium, for example, has a vastly better strength/weight ratio than steel. (Pedantic note: Yes, Im aware that both come in a vast array of grades, and many alloys exist. It's a general statement.) This also applies to some exotic materials in D&D, I imagine.

Therefore, it's possible to make melee weapons with greater reach now for the same weight as older weapons. Also, humans are simply bigger, so scaling up proportionately results in somewhat larger weapons than historically used.

The question is...how useful is reach, and how does it scale in opposition to weight?

[Matthew]

Also, humans are simply bigger, so scaling up proportionately results in somewhat larger weapons than historically used.

Technically, that is misleading, since modern day humans are in fact bigger on average, but that may not be an accurate reflection of who was employing large swords. It is really a none issue in any case, because what we would want to know is how big a sword can a person of height X and build Y effectively employ before it becomes inhibiting.

I suggest that we take the classic 180 lb, 72" human male as the basis for this discussion, if we are able to extend it from this point.

[Dervag]

This is true, but size /= weight. Titanium, for example, has a vastly better strength/weight ratio than steel. (Pedantic note: Yes, Im aware that both come in a vast array of grades, and many alloys exist. It's a general statement.) This also applies to some exotic materials in D&D, I imagine.

Therefore, it's possible to make melee weapons with greater reach now for the same weight as older weapons...

The catch is that increased reach also increases the moment of inertia of the weapon: it's harder to swing something when proportionately more of its weight is far from your body. It's harder just keeping the tip off the ground. And this problem increases rapidly when the weapon is already a lot longer than the section of it you're gripping, as is true for two-handed swords and polearms.

If I come up with a material that is as strong as medieval steel but has half the weight, and I try to build a double-size weapon out of the stuff, I'm still going to end up with a slower and more awkward weapon, because the section of it I can grip hasn't changed and the amount of torque I need to use to move it has.

The law of conservation of angular momentum plays no favorites.

[Matthew]

Anybody know where the idea of a "lance" of 20 knights comes from? I have seen it bandied about occasionally, but I know many sources suggest rather more variable numbers.

[Edmund]

As that article points out, "A practical explanation for the futility of especially heavy weapons is that they are slow. In physics terms, doubling the mass of a weapon can provide twice the strike energy, but doubling the velocity of a strike provides four times the energy."

Making a weapon heavier than it has to be, only hurts you in the end. You get less striking power than a lighter weapon, swung faster, and at the same time your weapon becomes more difficult to defend or maneuver with, and more fatiguing when used in a fight.

It is important to remember, though, that some weight is required to inflict harm, especially against an opponent with any sort of armor. It's a problem of shedding energy, which has been very well noted with bullets. A larger round like the .45 ACP will still penetrate deeper into a medium than the lighter, faster 9mm Parabellum.

This is because of the momentum of the larger round which, is calculated as P=mv and shows quite neatly that weight is rather more important than Clements gives it credit. Energy is a very inadequate metric to use when considering the effectiveness of weapons, especially those that rely on passing through their targets, like swords and spears, rather than dumping all their energy in the target themselves.

[Adlan]

Anybody know where the idea of a "lance" of 20 knights comes from? I have seen it bandied about occasionally, but I know many sources suggest rather more variable numbers.

AFAIK a Lance consisted of a knight, or some such noble, and his retainers, his men at arms, archers, and foot soldiers.

A term from the 100 years war.

[Tyndmyr]

I agree with Edmund, force = mass * speed. Yes, speed also has the virtue of manuverability, but weight also improves the strength of your blocks, as well as making your weapon harder to block. You don't really block so much with light weapons as you do deflect.

Center of balance on a weapon is certainly something else to consider, and extending length will most certainly affect that. Still, lets keep in mind that the swiss routinely used 18-20 foot pikes to excellent effect, and those will certainly have enough length, inertia, etc to provide some challenges.

For single-ended weapons, I suspect that the striking end(including handle) is probably hard capped at around the height of the wielder if you wish to use it in a slashing fashion. Any longer, and it simply becomes impossible to manuever without striking the ground in most angled cuts. Double ended weapons could be longer, but the same limitation will probably cap them at a shortly longer amount.

[Fhaolan]

For purposes of weapon material also remember there's a lot more to a sword blade than just size & weight. You also have the issues of hardness, and spring (or ductility/elasticity to use less steel-orientated words).

If the material is not hard enough, it will be difficult to keep an edge on a blade. Also, the blade will tend to bend away from impact, lessening the energy transfer. This was the problem with the earliest iron swords.

If the material is too hard, the edge will fracture on impact, leading to it wearing away very fast. This was the problem with obsidian chips set in wooden blades like the Aztecs used. While very sharp, you had to replace the chips fairly often as they shattered away. Also, if the material is *really* hard, the entire blade will shatter when struck. This is why obsidian 'swords' were actually clubs with obsidan chips in it. Larger obsidian blades did exist, but they shattered too easily to be more than ceremonial.

And to top it off, if the material isn't springy enough, when it does deform it will simply stay bent. This was another issue with the early iron swords.

The modern materials like titanium, cobalt alloys, super-ceramics and the like are hard and take a very good edge. However, they are also brittle so that when they do 'give' they shatter rather than deform. This is why they make very good carving knives, but very poor cleavers. The edges of the cleavers tend to fracture when they hit harder things making it very difficult to maintain that edge.

Stainless steel and similar things also suffer from lesser forms of this issue which is why 'sword people' tend to poo-poo stainless steel blades. They're simply too brittle to make good swords.

This is not to say that there isn't a modern material that would make a lighter sword blade than good carbon steel to allow for super-sized swords, just that it's not as easy as simply saying 'Titanium' or 'Stellite'.

Basically a sword is not just a big knife, and by extension a super-sized sword is not just a big sword. While there are similarities, the differences in how they are used means more to the material needs than just strength/weight ratios.

[Brainfart]

The catch is that increased reach also increases the moment of inertia of the weapon: it's harder to swing something when proportionately more of its weight is far from your body. It's harder just keeping the tip off the ground. And this problem increases rapidly when the weapon is already a lot longer than the section of it you're gripping, as is true for two-handed swords and polearms.

If I come up with a material that is as strong as medieval steel but has half the weight, and I try to build a double-size weapon out of the stuff, I'm still going to end up with a slower and more awkward weapon, because the section of it I can grip hasn't changed and the amount of torque I need to use to move it has.

This is where proper mass distribution comes in. Many modern replicas handle like dried donkey turds because they do not replicate the distal or profile taper of period originals accurately.

~

The 'Sword' episode of 'Weapons that Made Britain' shows the deformation that a sword blade undergoes on impact. Suffice to say, there's a reason why swords have to be flexible. :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEMwc...D67128&index=0

[Dervag]

I agree with Edmund, force = mass * speed.

Your choice of terminology makes a physicist weep somewhere (here), but that doesn't mean the idea you wish to convey is fundamentally wrong.

Center of balance on a weapon is certainly something else to consider, and extending length will most certainly affect that. Still, lets keep in mind that the swiss routinely used 18-20 foot pikes to excellent effect, and those will certainly have enough length, inertia, etc to provide some challenges.

True, but they did so by fighting in a very specialized style. An individual pikeman would have been meat on the table for an equally trained and armored opponent with a shorter, handier weapon. For most purposes, taking your spear (an eminently practical weapon) and doubling it to the length of a short pike will put a major dent in your combat effectiveness.

[HenryHankovitch]

It is important to remember, though, that some weight is required to inflict harm, especially against an opponent with any sort of armor. It's a problem of shedding energy, which has been very well noted with bullets. A larger round like the .45 ACP will still penetrate deeper into a medium than the lighter, faster 9mm Parabellum.

This isn't a hard and fast rule at all. A smaller, harder round, going faster, is generally used for armor penetration. Such as the FN 5.7mm round. Regardless, ballistics is a drastically different subject than melee weapons.

This is because of the momentum of the larger round which, is calculated as P=mv and shows quite neatly that weight is rather more important than Clements gives it credit.

Actually, aside from the obvious point that you need some mass to accomplish anything, this really proves nothing. Increasing mass doesn't improve your momentum more than increasing velocity; and increasing mass has far more drawbacks.

The point is, I'm quite firmly convinced that if there were any real-world use in making significantly heavier weapons, a la the "fullblade," or fantasy-style greataxe, or what have you, then actual people who lived and died by such weapons would have used them. The fact that even the biggest swords we know of were still, historically, less than 10 lbs total and often less than 5 lbs, demonstrates the point quite adequately.

Admittedly, there is something to the concept of "make your weapon the same weight, but with more reach"--we call it the polearm. :p But even so, if you look at the situation holistically you have to realize that using polearms is a vastly different creature than using "close" melee weapons like swords. Basically, using a pike or other polearm longer than 6" or so usually precludes you from "defencing" with it. You're no longer actively engaging and defending against an opponent's weapon, you're depending on your armor, and the combined presence of all your friends' pike-points, to protect you, while you jab or chop at the enemy. The center of inertia is so far out in front of you that you really can execute only the simplest motions with it--to say nothing of jostling or fouling the other people in formation.

Frankly, I think what this discussion usually comes from is the fact that to most people, the idea of picking up something more than 5 lbs, and doing anything more than carrying it for a little bit and putting it down again, is a complete abstraction to them. A 15 lb chunk of metal is heavy, when you're talking about actually doing any sort of work involving complex motions with it. Pick up a 15-lb dumbbell some time (or pick up a gallon jug of water or milk, which weighs about 8.3 lbs), and hold it out from your body for a little while. Feel your arms begin to shake after about 30 seconds. At that point, try to imagine fencing with it. Or hitting an incoming tennis ball with it. This isn't a matter of "lol girly man can't hold 25 lbs," or "lol knights aren't fat, flabby office workers." Medieval people weren't stupid, even if they didn't actually know the formulas for force or momentum.

I feel quite comfortable in claiming that there never was a single knight who ever fought with a longsword and thought, "you know what? This isn't bad, but if it was like four inches wider and weighed three times as much, that would be totally kick-ass." :p

[Matthew]

AFAIK a Lance consisted of a knight, or some such noble, and his retainers, his men at arms, archers, and foot soldiers.

A term from the 100 years war.

Yeah. Maybe I am thinking of "squadron"; anyway, the important thing is the number "20" for the purposes of this question. I was wondering if it might be to do with the very late medieval "standing/royal companies". I am pretty sure it is not related to the military orders, at any rate. Great article to read, by the way, if you have not already: How to Deliver a Cavalry Charge.

[Rasilak]

Your choice of terminology makes a physicist weep somewhere (here), but that doesn't mean the idea you wish to convey is fundamentally wrong.

Word. So here a little reminder for non-physicists:

momentum = mass * velocity
angular momentum = moment of inertia * angular velocity
(kinetic) energy = 1/2 * mass * speed^2 (velocity has a direction, speed does not)
force = mass * acceleration (at least if mass is constant, in general it's dp/dt)
power = energy / time

EDIT: Physicists i know use entirely non-technical terms when talking about martial arts if they're too lazy to think if they mean momentum, energy or something entirely else. The word "Schmackes" (pronounced "shmuggess") is quite popular in such cases - but it's probably pretty regional slang from around Frankfurt; someone from Berlin or Munich might not understand it. However, I don't know any english term with similiar meaning but neutral in any technical/scientific aspect.

[Norsesmithy]

It is important to remember, though, that some weight is required to inflict harm, especially against an opponent with any sort of armor. It's a problem of shedding energy, which has been very well noted with bullets. A larger round like the .45 ACP will still penetrate deeper into a medium than the lighter, faster 9mm Parabellum.

This is because of the momentum of the larger round which, is calculated as P=mv and shows quite neatly that weight is rather more important than Clements gives it credit. Energy is a very inadequate metric to use when considering the effectiveness of weapons, especially those that rely on passing through their targets, like swords and spears, rather than dumping all their energy in the target themselves.

Not quite.

This isn't a hard and fast rule at all. A smaller, harder round, going faster, is generally used for armor penetration. Such as the FN 5.7mm round. Regardless, ballistics is a drastically different subject than melee weapons.


Actually, aside from the obvious point that you need some mass to accomplish anything, this really proves nothing. Increasing mass doesn't improve your momentum more than increasing velocity; and increasing mass has far more drawbacks.

Any drawback is going to be application specific. In firearms, for instance, it is almost always preferable to use the heaviest bullet you can get in a given caliber, because the benefits of increasing mass instead of velocity, with any given energy budget (since e=mv^2, and p=mv, increasing m, while keeping e constant gives you a good increase in p with little drawback)

And actually, because of the way that the pressure of the powder in a firearm acts at the bullet, you often get higher e values when you increase m without having to use more powder.

Even for armor peircing loads, like 5.7, a 55 grain 5.7 load will generally penetrate armor better than a 45 grain load.

The reason why 5.7 is a better armor piercer than 9mm has to do with the fact that the resistance encountered by the bullet is fairly proportional to the frontal area of the bullet (tip profile is also a factor), and that makes thinner better because radius is a squared value there too.

Which is why 147 grain 9x19mm penetrates better than 115 grain 9x19mm, but both penetrate better than 230 grain .45 ACP (aka 11.43x25mm).

[Dervag]

EDIT: Physicists i know use entirely non-technical terms when talking about martial arts if they're too lazy to think if they mean momentum, energy or something entirely else. The word "Schmackes" (pronounced "shmuggess") is quite popular in such cases - but it's probably pretty regional slang from around Frankfurt; someone from Berlin or Munich might not understand it. However, I don't know any english term with similiar meaning but neutral in any technical/scientific aspect.

In the US, suitable colloquial terms include "oomph" if you're being very informal, and "impact" if you're being slightly less so. Or you can make up your own on the spot; I'm partial to "whumpage."

Seriously, we just use the real words when they're appropriate and hardly ever need anything else. But never do we ever use a term with a physical definition and match it to the wrong definition. Momentum is well defined and equals mass times speed; force is well defined and means something rather different.