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

[Psyx]

We haven't really touched upon the other focus of heavy cavalry of course:

Killing the other side's cavalry.

Calvary is such a useful element that if one can remove a foes' cavalry arm from the battlefield, one has a substantial advantage.



"A .50 bullet will not hurt you even with a near miss because of the shockwave around the bullet."

This is absolutely correct. A bullet which is shedding enough energy to have some limb-ripping shock-wave isn't going to travel anywhere far.

Further to the .50BMG sending people flying back 10 feet idea; check further up on this thread. Gel torsos are not people. Science still says 'no', because of Newton's third law.

[Xuc Xac]

But they usually won't have the same geometry, as spear would have much shorter blade than most swords, and in result it would have geometry as a part of the sword blade at most.

As long as it's the part of the blade that goes into the other guy, then it's effectively identical. When you stab a 40 cm spearhead and the first 40 cm of a 1m sword blade into someone's chest, it's not important how much sword blade is left outside their body.

[Spiryt]

As long as it's the part of the blade that goes into the other guy, then it's effectively identical. When you stab a 40 cm spearhead and the first 40 cm of a 1m sword blade into someone's chest, it's not important how much sword blade is left outside their body.

Except that part that doesn't still have obvious meaning in how whole things behaves.

All I'm saying is that 40 cm spear blade won't behave like 1m of sword blade, simply because 1 meter of steel thing will behave differently than 40 cm.

[Caustic Soda]

One advantages of spears that hasn't been touched upon yet is that you don't need as much room to wield a spear. that can make for much tighter formations, which in turn makes it possible to bring more weapons to bear on the enemy. And of course, spears tend to have more reach than swords .

[Xuc Xac]

Except that part that doesn't still have obvious meaning in how whole things behaves.

All I'm saying is that 40 cm spear blade won't behave like 1m of sword blade, simply because 1 meter of steel thing will behave differently than 40 cm.

Go back and look at what we're talking about. The question is about how much effort it takes to push it into the enemy's body, not about using it in general.

[Xuc Xac]

One advantages of spears that hasn't been touched upon yet is that you don't need as much room to wield a spear. that can make for much tighter formations, which in turn makes it possible to bring more weapons to bear on the enemy. And of course, spears tend to have more reach than swords .

You can thrust swords in a tight formation just as easily as you can spears. In fact, the sword takes up less room because you don't have to worry about the guy behind you. And if you want to turn around, the sword wins again. Try using a spear in a narrow hallway where you have to go around corners or turn to face something behind you. The spear's advantage is reach. The sword wins when you compare them based on how much elbow room you need to wield it.

[Spiryt]

Go back and look at what we're talking about. The question is about how much effort it takes to push it into the enemy's body, not about using it in general.

Go look what I'm talking about.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, stiffness, harmonics, proportions, sectional density mean that way it will behave when pushing into something won't be the same, as 40 cm part of longer blade.

Leaving aside wood, different grip and usage, I'm talking about blade here.

[Yora]

I think given all factors, like the ability to mass produce great numbers at low cost, without need for highly trained craftsmen, relatively few training required, effectiveness against armor, and damage potential, spears and all their variants are probably the best melee weapon there is.
If you have the money to pay for it, the resources availabable to make it, a weaponsmith who can make it, the time to wait for it, and the time to train with it, a sword might produce better results for a single wealthy, and well trained warrior. But when you consider everything else, spears had a much greater impact on warfare worldwide.
And from the greek phalanxes to the swiss pikemen, it indeed was THE weapon of mass warfare.
This weapon really needs more love for fantasy heroes.

[Psyx]

It does. They're good in WFRP, as they do the same damage as swords, have a +10 initiative bonus, and can be thrown.

As well as being THE battlefield weapon, the Japanese fighting arts seem to reckon a skilled spearman to be able to defeat an equally trained swordsman. I'm not so sure about Western arts, but certainly in England a good man with a quarterstaff was reckoned to outmatch a swordsman.

Pole weapons also open up the legs as a much more viable target, and hence leg armour becomes more valuable when facing them.

[Galloglaich]

Not to derail all the spear - love, because I agree with just about everything that has been said about them, but they do have one big flaw compared to swords. A spear, a staff, or any hafted weapon is much easier to grab than a sword blade. That is the achilles heel of any and every hafted weapon and it's the real reason why swords were prestige weapons all over the world for 3000 years. As soon as you get a bind, you grab the haft of their weapon and cut them.

I think a half-trained spearman will defeat a half-trained swordsman 99% of the time.

On the other hand, a trained sword and shield guy is equal or perhaps has a slight edge over a spearman. And a very good longsword fighter can defeat a spearman if he's experienced at dealing with spears. There is spear vs. longsword stuff in the fechtbuchs and there are effective techniques for dealing with spear thrusts. A zweihander can cope with any polearm on an equal or better footing.

There are some famous (heavily propagandized) cases where Englishmen armed with staves defeated Spaniards and Italians armed with rapier and dagger (or sidesword and dagger). But these weapons are arguable not ideal for dealing with a polearm.


In an RPG context, the spear or polearm is generally the best weapon to have if you are out in the open simply becsause of the reach advantage. (Which again, I don't think most RPG combat systems take into account enough.) In a confied space, inside a building etc. you probably have to use a shorter weapon though.

One other thought. The spear does certainly at least equal damage as a sword in a thrust, probably more penetration due to leverage. But ultimately a blade is a blade. The same is also true of a dagger. I find it astounding that in virtually every RPG system I've ever seen, a dagger is essentially a nuisance weapon. A 14" double-edged knife is no joke, and at close range it's far more lethal than either a sword or a spear.

G.

[9mm]

so recently while going through some books I came across the term "throwing wedge" and all attempts at google lead to pottery techniques, is this an actual weapon or a catch-all term for "bizzare throwing weapon?"

[Storm Bringer]

thing is, most systems don't think of a 14" double edged knife as being a "dagger". Personally, I'd call it a short sword by DnD reckoning.

when they talk of daggers, I think they mean somthing in closer to 8-10" long. I'd aggree they don't get enough love, though.

[Yora]

Daggers were certainly no simple pocket knives. Some difinitions put the blade length at up to 40 cm. (Which is probably about as much as 14", I think?).

That was something I was constantly thinking when I read the "real world weapon damage" thread. Wether it's a 9mm bllet, a .45 bullet, a dagger, a spear, or a sword, once you get one in the belly you're pretty much out of the fight. The difference is mostly in you're chance to survive wound if you get proper treatment. Without treatment, you're most certainly dead in either case.

[hamishspence]

thing is, most systems don't think of a 14" double edged knife as being a "dagger". Personally, I'd call it a short sword by DnD reckoning.

when they talk of daggers, I think they mean somthing in closer to 8-10" long. I'd aggree they don't get enough love, though.

14" blade, or 14" from end of hilt to tip of blade? I see short swords as being maybe 2 ft long including hilt- anything significantly shorter than that is entering dagger (dirk? Stiletto?) territory. At least in D&D.

Here:

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

the shortest gladius blade (not counting hilt) is listed as 45 cm long, or about 18". Quite a bit more than 14".

[Yora]

Swords were generally quite bigger than they are usually portayed in many fantasy movies and art.
Two-handed swords were often as long as their weilder was tall, sometimes even longer. And at 80 cm blade length, a gladius is closer to what we think of as a "longsword" than a "short sword".
And yes, many daggers would fall in the "fantasy short sword" range.

[hamishspence]

80 cm blade length? What gladii were that big?

68 cm seems to be the biggest one listed.


Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong here (it sometimes is) but 80 cm seems awfully long for the blade of a gladius.

[Matthew]

80 cm blade length? What gladii were that big?

68 cm seems to be the biggest one listed.


Of course, Wikipedia could be wrong here (it sometimes is) but 80 cm seems awfully long for the blade of a gladius.

Whilst technically gladius was used by the Romans of swords of various lengths, in modern times we have come to distinguish between gladius (blade c. 12-24") and spatha (blade c. 24-36") as short and long categories of Roman swords (or sword and short-sword). Vegetius distinguished via "semi-spatha" and "spatha", using gladius for both, but the modern usage is prevalent. The total length of a gladius could approach about 31", including hilt, pommel and guard, which might get you close to 80cm (78.74 cm), but that is approaching the upper limit, most seem to have been more like 20" in blade length, or less.

[hamishspence]

Arms & Equipment Guide has a big list of real sword names for D&D swords.
Spatha is one of the longsword names.
Gladius is one of the short sword names.

[Hurlbut]

it's the real reason why swords were prestige weapons all over the world for 3000 years.

Not to derail your own post, but it was a prestige weapon because 1. it was expensive to make (owning it is a sign of wealth) and 2. it was a very useful back up weapon much like the semiautomatic pistol such as 1911A1 Colt and Mauser/Luger.

[Lapak]

Not to derail your own post, but it was a prestige weapon because 1. it was expensive to make (owning it is a sign of wealth) and 2. it was a very useful back up weapon much like the semiautomatic pistol such as 1911A1 Colt and Mauser/Luger.

Backup weapon or primary, I personally think that one of the really big things that kept swords so popular for so long is that they're one of the few battlefield-effective main weapons that you can carry around relatively easily. The 'sheath+belt' method of storage, keeping it handy yet made safe until you need it, is pretty much superior to the storage possibilities for everything else you'd care to name. Spears, axes, bows, hammers and maces; just about every other battlefield weapon requires you to lug it around in your hand(s) if you want to have it ready to use.

[Matthew]

Arms & Equipment Guide has a big list of real sword names for D&D swords.
Spatha is one of the longsword names.
Gladius is one of the short sword names.

Yes, although D&D source books are not often accurate at the best of times, gladius as it is used by modern weapon enthusiasts, collectors, and historians usually corresponds to a D&D "short sword", and a spatha in the same context corresponds to a D&D "long sword". At the default level of granularity, it is also perfectly reasonable, though many D&D and D20 supplements subsequently "zoom in" and try to achieve higher levels of precision, with mixed results.

[Shademan]

do any of you know what arms and armour the scots guard used? the first ones?

[Yora]

Not to derail your own post, but it was a prestige weapon because 1. it was expensive to make (owning it is a sign of wealth).

In Europe, and I think also Japan, carrying swords was legally restricted to the respective knight castes. Violating these laws as a commoner could be punished very severely. Much like the horse, a sword was an important symbol that identified a person as a knight. And as knights were the elite soldiers of their societies, the sword kept being remembered as a weapon for heroes.
But everyone could carry a spear, an axe, or a club, so there's nothing special about a person carrying one. They were weapons for the hordes of faceless mooks no historian ever cared for.

[Matthew]

In Europe, and I think also Japan, carrying swords was legally restricted to the respective knight castes. Violating these laws as a commoner could be punished very severely. Much like the horse, a sword was an important symbol that identified a person as a knight. And as knights were the elite soldiers of their societies, the sword kept being remembered as a weapon for heroes.

But everyone could carry a spear, an axe, or a club, so there's nothing special about a person carrying one. They were weapons for the hordes of faceless mooks no historian ever cared for.

In some places this may have been true, but I do not think it was typical of England, France, Germany, Spain, or Italy during the middle ages. Swords were military signifiers, but they were not restricted by social class, except insofar as they were expensive. However, "long swords" are not particularly well suited to fighting in a close press, so you are more likely to see shorter back-up weapons in the hands of foot soldiers.

[Brainfart]

The Assize of Arms of 1252 pretty much disproves the contention that the sword was a purely knightly weapon. In England, at least.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

How feasible is it to reuse a damaged sword?
If it was chipped, bent, rusted, or snapped is there a way to salvage them or were they simply thrown out. Similarly is it possible to melt down and reforge a blade?

[Xuc Xac]

How feasible is it to reuse a damaged sword?
If it was chipped, bent, rusted, or snapped is there a way to salvage them or were they simply thrown out. Similarly is it possible to melt down and reforge a blade?

With bronze weapons, it was relatively easy to melt a broken sword and pout it into a new mold to cast a new sword. With steel weapons, the effort involved was significantly harder. If you're going to start over from scratch anyway, you might as well use new iron rather than trying to melt down scrap metal from a broken sword. Considering the work that goes into making steel weapons, I think they would be reluctant to completely scrap it. If your katana broke, you'd set the tip into a handle to make a tanto and re-sharpen the end of the piece still attach to the hilt to make a wakizashi. I imagine that "Big sword --> knife and smaller sword" was standard practice in most places because it's easier than reforging the metal from scratch. No one would just throw metal away. They used to burn down old barns just to get all the nails back.

[Psyx]

In Europe, and I think also Japan, carrying swords was legally restricted to the respective knight castes.

Most certainly not. The only restriction in Europe was the price, which dropped after the Dark Ages.

In Japan the sword-hunts to disarm the peasantry were a fairly late thing, happening near the end of the Sengoku period (circa C16), as I recall. 20 years later the country was stable and swordsmanship and bushido became the refined concepts that we associate them with, as samurai became tea-sipping duellists. For pretty much the entire span of warfare in Japan there were no such edicts.


"so recently while going through some books I came across the term "throwing wedge" and all attempts at google lead to pottery techniques, is this an actual weapon or a catch-all term for "bizzare throwing weapon?" "

What were they speaking in relation to? Western or Eastern weapons? In Japan, short throwing nails/spikes/blades were far more common than the star-shaped shruiken that we tend to think of. It could refer to those, perhaps?

[valadil]

thing is, most systems don't think of a 14" double edged knife as being a "dagger". Personally, I'd call it a short sword by DnD reckoning.

when they talk of daggers, I think they mean somthing in closer to 8-10" long. I'd aggree they don't get enough love, though.

I looked into this quite a bit when I bought my first blade and wanted to know if it was a dagger or a knife. Unfortunately that was almost 10 years ago and I have no idea what my sources were. But the conclusion that stuck with me was that a dagger had a blade that was up to 18 inches and was double sided.

<speculation>
Regarding spear thrust vs sword thrust, I imagine the sword would have a chance of bending, while the spear would be more rigid. I don't know how much bending would actually happen, and I'm sure it would vary with the type of sword, but intuitively it seems like could end up with a point that was heading in a direction that wasn't where you were pushing it. If a sword flexed while you were stabbing someone, the blow would therefore be weaker.
</speculation>

[String]

I may be asking the impossible, but is there anything like a 'standard' time between pulling the trigger on a handgun and the bullet actually firing? However many assumptions need to be made (constant pulling pressure, etc), is there anyway to find out how long the mechanisms on a gun take to fire the bullet?