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

[Xuc Xac]

Autolykos, the action of the urine masks was chemical, not physical. their is a chemcial in urine that reacted with chlorine to neutralise it, thus protecting the breather.

"Mustard gas" reacts with water to form sulfuric acid. Breathing through a wet rag will cause the gas to react with the water in the rag and probably burn your face. But that's better than letting it react with your wet, juicy lungs. If you burn your face, you'll get a nasty rash and maybe some scarring if it's a bad burn. If you burn your lungs, you'll drown in your own mucus.

[fusilier]

"Mustard gas" reacts with water to form sulfuric acid. Breathing through a wet rag will cause the gas to react with the water in the rag and probably burn your face. But that's better than letting it react with your wet, juicy lungs. If you burn your face, you'll get a nasty rash and maybe some scarring if it's a bad burn. If you burn your lungs, you'll drown in your own mucus.

Yeah, but that's mustard gas. Even a wet rag was said to help against chlorine gas -- phosgene, on the other hand, needed more serious protection.

[Galloglaich]

I don't want to think about the possible effects of pneumatic plague...

If I could go back to a prior topic, what is it about Bolognese fencing that makes it so difficult? Are the techniques particularly demanding of strength, flexibility, or stamina?

It's not that it's demanding in that sense, it's just that it hasn't been as widely interpreted yet as say the Lichtenauer tradition stuff (like the Talhoffer you've been looking at). So there aren't quite as many videos and DvDs and books and etc.

You have to remember, until about 15 years ago, the number of people in the world who knew about ven the existence of any of these fencing manuals could fill a school bus. Today there are probably 20,000 active HEMA practitioners worldwide, but 90% of them are probably studying Lichtenauer tradition, I.33, or Fiore / Vadi, many of the later manuals have not been sussed out completely yet. For example they just found some Spanish and Portuguese manuals last year and nobody has really figured them out yet.

Also, Bolognese fencing is closer to rapier fencing and classical fencing and is a very precise, geometric oriented system. It's subtle and not as intuitive for some folks as the longsword, messer, dagger etc. By my experience the rapier people (and Bolognese fencing sort of falls into that side of the fence rather arbitrarily) aree somewhat of a different breed. But we all like to fight.

Also, I'd like to thank all of you guys for posting videos of interpretations of Talhoffer et al. I tried one of those techniques in practice with my epée (Play Two - He cuts freely from the roof, he has displaced with turned hand and will step in front and wrench), or a similar one, with less wrenching and more closing the distance and pressing the point into my opponent. Worked like a charm.

Glad to hear that, yes, it's interesting isnt' it how well these old techniques work if you apply them correctly.

G.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

It's not that it's demanding in that sense, it's just that it hasn't been as widely interpreted yet as say the Lichtenauer tradition stuff (like the Talhoffer you've been looking at). So there aren't quite as many videos and DvDs and books and etc.

You have to remember, until about 15 years ago, the number of people in the world who knew about ven the existence of any of these fencing manuals could fill a school bus. Today there are probably 20,000 active HEMA practitioners worldwide, but 90% of them are probably studying Lichtenauer tradition, I.33, or Fiore / Vadi, many of the later manuals have not been sussed out completely yet. For example they just found some Spanish and Portuguese manuals last year and nobody has really figured them out yet.

Also, Bolognese fencing is closer to rapier fencing and classical fencing and is a very precise, geometric oriented system. It's subtle and not as intuitive for some folks as the longsword, messer, dagger etc. By my experience the rapier people (and Bolognese fencing sort of falls into that side of the fence rather arbitrarily) aree somewhat of a different breed. But we all like to fight.

I'll have to check out those links you posted on it then. That sounds like it could improve my epée technique, though it may not be the easiest place to start my study of HEMA.

Glad to hear that, yes, it's interesting isnt' it how well these old techniques work if you apply them correctly.

G.

Indeed it is interesting, especially that they can be so easily adapted to a different style of fencing.

[Karoht]

My great-grandfather was exposed to (mustard?) gas when he fought in both world wars, though I forget which war in which he was exposed to it.
I met him on his deathbed. I was either 6 or 8 at the time. I think the official cause of death was lung cancer, but one could easily imagine the two were related. He had lung problems for years/decades. He was a cop in London between the wars, and he was a bricklayer in London after WWII if memory serves me correctly.

So yeah, not nice stuff that.

[Storm Bringer]

it would be the first world war. while everyone in th second was scared that the other side would unleash some of the truly horiffic nerve agents made in the interwar period (today, there are gases that can kill in a single breath), everybody, hitler included, held back and refrained form using chemcial weaponry weaponry.

[fusilier]

My great-grandfather was exposed to (mustard?) gas when he fought in both world wars, though I forget which war in which he was exposed to it.
I met him on his deathbed. I was either 6 or 8 at the time. I think the official cause of death was lung cancer, but one could easily imagine the two were related. He had lung problems for years/decades. He was a cop in London between the wars, and he was a bricklayer in London after WWII if memory serves me correctly.

So yeah, not nice stuff that.

Many who were gassed basically ended up with compromised lungs. I've heard of people who have been exposed to chlorine gas in laboratory accidents: they cannot smoke, and if they contract a chest cold it will last for months or even years! Mustard gas is known to have mutagenic effects, so even if a victim recovers it can cause problems years later.

Yeah, gas warfare is very very ugly. At one point I tried to stat out some WW1 gasses for GURPS, but gave up; there's a lot of conflicting information and I realized it wasn't worth roleplaying. I was amazed by the actions of many of the early British researchers -- almost all of whom died prematurely, as they were often exposed to gas accidentally, or even intentionally -- they would sometimes purposely inhale gas during an attack in an attempt to identify it! Also, tear gas was used a lot, but it's often overlooked, and I couldn't find clear information on how much was used and where.

Gas was used after WW1 (and even in WW2), but only against an enemy that couldn't retaliate.

[MickJay]

One of the main issues with gas was its unreliability: the weather conditions need to be appropriate for its use to be effective, and if the enemy is prepared, then the gas becomes only an inconvenience, as it forces the soldiers to wear gas masks. Even the nastiest weapons are (still) being deployed, regardless of bans, if they're getting their task done and the collateral damage is acceptable (where both militarily criteria and public relations are concerned).

[Autolykos]

it would be the first world war. while everyone in th second was scared that the other side would unleash some of the truly horiffic nerve agents made in the interwar period (today, there are gases that can kill in a single breath), everybody, hitler included, held back and refrained form using chemcial weaponry weaponry.

Well, nearly everybody...

[Yora]

Again, google has failed me, so I turn to a better fond of knowledge:

An off-topic discussion came up in another thread, regarding the use of bronze and iron weapons.
A common view seems to be, that the Bronze Age ended because they ran out of bronze, so they had to make do with iron that is less expensive and easier to get by. It was only then that iron working was advanced to a point that people could make weapons of steel that are superior to those made of bronze.

But how good is bronze for weapons and armor anyway? It's certainly much better than pure iron, or people would not have gone through the trouble of getting their hands on the very expensive bronze.

Bronze is just about 10% heavier than iron or steel. So unless steel can be worked much thinner (I don't know if it does?), weight would not be that much of a factor when you use spears or short swords. Through actual swordsmen might disagree.

Given the choice of both bronze and early types of steel (let's say 0 to 500 AD), would bronze still be competeable or clearly be outperformed by steel?

[Norsesmithy]

I don't think they ran out so much as it cost something like a tenth as much of the price of a chunk of bronze for a similar chunk of iron.

Because Tin is hard to mine and only comes from a few places, whereas you can get Iron from burning peat.

And yes, the mature technology that was late bronze age bronze working did produce, for a while, a superior blade than the new technology that was early iron age iron working. But for the cost of a single bronze sword, you could outfit a large number of people with iron swords.

[Galloglaich]

I don't think they ran out so much as it cost something like a tenth as much of the price of a chunk of bronze for a similar chunk of iron.

Because Tin is hard to mine and only comes from a few places, whereas you can get Iron from burning peat.

And yes, the mature technology that was late bronze age bronze working did produce, for a while, a superior blade than the new technology that was early iron age iron working. But for the cost of a single bronze sword, you could outfit a large number of people with iron swords.

What he said.

It was basically a matter of the availability of the ingredients; Iron ore could be got from many sources, panned from rivers, mined from rock, from bog plants, etc. Bronze required both copper and tin, which had been mined out in the regions where the Civilized cultures were that used Bronze, so it had to be got from very far away indeed. Eastern Mediterranean cultures were getting Tin from the British Isles and Western Spain. Some other 'Bronze' was actually a copper / arsenic alloy, other types were actually a type of Brass made with calamide which was the only source they had for zinc.

Late Bronze weapons got quite sophisticated. In China they were making Jian swords using different alloys with differential hardening and something like tempering techniques. These were generally far more sophisticated than early iron weapons, which are usually daggers or spear-heads instead of swwords. As you pointed out, most Bronze alloys (there were many and they had widely different properties) were about 10% heavier than iron, not quite as malleable generally, though they could be much harder than iron and were generally better than most early iron weapons. I say most because from the very first appearances of iron you did see some examples where steel was being made or (more commonly) pattern-welding and things like forge-welding and case-hardening.

The earliest steel I'm aware of was from the Haya Culture in Africa which seems to have been making some (very rare) steel artifacts as early as the 14th Century BC. Late Halstadt culture (Celtic or Illyrian) was producing pattern welded (partly or composite steel) artefacts by the 8th Century BC which were also very rare, then you see 'Norric steel" becomming pretty common in Illyria in the 3rd Century BC, and around the same time in Spain, and that is also when Crucible Steel appears in India.

Steel weapons were much better than Bronze for blades or for armor. Bronze continued to be used for mace heads into the Renaissance in some areas. But steel remained rare for a long time. Wootz ("Damascus") steel remained a hugely valuable trade commodity well into the Middle Ages. The European Barbarians (Franks and other Germanic tribes) started making steel in some signfiicant quantities again by the 8th or 9th Century AD, but it didn't really become cheap and widespread until the mini-industrial revolution of water and wind powered automation which took place from the 11th - 14th Century, mainly spread by the Cistercian monks. Not coincidentally, this corresponds to a rise in both iron armor and steel weapons, and later by the 15th Century, steel armor, all of which contributed to European military successes.

Steel is really the "miracle metal" of RPGs, it can be so many things and tempered and heat treated, is vastly stronger and more durable than any other metal (or really, any other substance until you get nano technology and carbon fiiber composites in the 20th / 21st Centuries)

G.

[Joran]

Many who were gassed basically ended up with compromised lungs. I've heard of people who have been exposed to chlorine gas in laboratory accidents: they cannot smoke, and if they contract a chest cold it will last for months or even years! Mustard gas is known to have mutagenic effects, so even if a victim recovers it can cause problems years later.

Yeah, gas warfare is very very ugly.

Gas was used after WW1 (and even in WW2), but only against an enemy that couldn't retaliate.

I read that some of the most potent nerve agents only require a small amount to be touched or inhaled before lethal. It's pretty unnerving stuff (pun not intended).

As an aside, I always found the German chemist Fritz Haber to be a fascinating figure. He discovered how to fix nitrogen into fertilizers, so his discovery made large scale agriculture possible. The process also allowed explosives and gunpowder to be made without relying on natural sources of saltpeter, allowing Germany to stay in World War I. He also helped develop chemical weapons, including Chlorine gas.

His first wife committed suicide in opposition to his development of chemical weapons, as did his son after World War II. Despite all his accomplishments in the service of Germany, he eventually left because he was ostracized for being a Jew.

[Storm Bringer]

Speaking as a british soldier who had his annual CBRN (Chemical Biological Radiological Nucular, formerly called just NBC) training last week, their are some nerve agents out thier which, in ideal condictions, you can inhale a leathal doseage of in a single breath.


I dont know how fast you would be killed by that level of dosage, but if my training is anything to go by, the symptoms would be apprant within minutes.


the fun part is, the standard antidote for nerve agents, Aptrophine (sp?), is, in fact, posionous at the doesages required to counteract the nerve agents in time. one of the major parts of our training is recognising nerve agent posioning, and also recognising Aptrophine posioning.


It's just significantly less bad for you than the nerve gas.

[Galloglaich]

yeah they scared the crap out of me with that stuff when I was in the army. I remember doing full scale decontamination drills in Germany, the doctor was in an airlock and we had to prepare the (fake) patients in Mopp IV gear. I still have nightmares about it once in a while.

G.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Gas weapons...nasty business that.



Anyhow, I was wondering about the continued usage of revolvers in competition, is that simply due to the rules having a division for the revolver holdouts, or is there some mechanical/practical advantage to the wheelgun over an automatic?

[Norsesmithy]

Revolvers are scored in a different division, typically.

They compete against themselves, not against autoloaders.

Though to be fair, at the highest levels of competition, the differences are rather small, though they are consistent, and when used by persons of equal skill, the autoloader will win such a large portion of the time to be functionally equivalent to always.

[Raum]

Anyhow, I was wondering about the continued usage of revolvers in competition, is that simply due to the rules having a division for the revolver holdouts, or is there some mechanical/practical advantage to the wheelgun over an automatic?

A good revolver is more reliable than an automatic and can take more abuse. Mostly because it's simpler - fewer moving parts means fewer points of failure.

But that has little to do with competition. We humans can turn anything into a competition. And, for the most part, we don't need a reason beyond the competition itself.

[Galloglaich]

Gas weapons...nasty business that.



Anyhow, I was wondering about the continued usage of revolvers in competition, is that simply due to the rules having a division for the revolver holdouts, or is there some mechanical/practical advantage to the wheelgun over an automatic?

Revolvers don't jam

G.

[Norsesmithy]

A good revolver is more reliable than an automatic and can take more abuse. Mostly because it's simpler - fewer moving parts means fewer points of failure.

Mechanically, the mechanism of a double action revolver is more complex and more delicate than the mechanism of a semiautomatic pistol. It is much easier to kill a revolver than a selfloader. It is very easy to disrupt or damage the timing mechanisms on a revolver that advance the cylinder, and a small change can make your bullets start hitting the frame of the revolver instead of the forcing cone, with predictably negative results. Also many revolvers demand a specific brand of ammunition, and if fed the wrong stuff will suffer a primer extrusion that prevents the cylinder from being advanced until you smack it open with a mallet.

A autoloader might have trouble feeding if things aren't properly up to spec, or you are using it wrong, but you are far more likely to turn a gun into a fistload if you drop it, if your gun is a revolver.

Revolvers don't jam

G.

They jam LESS, but when they do, you need tools to fix them, not immediate action drills.

[Subotei]

One of the main issues with gas was its unreliability: the weather conditions need to be appropriate for its use to be effective, and if the enemy is prepared, then the gas becomes only an inconvenience, as it forces the soldiers to wear gas masks. Even the nastiest weapons are (still) being deployed, regardless of bans, if they're getting their task done and the collateral damage is acceptable (where both militarily criteria and public relations are concerned).

Against WW1 horsedrawn artillery a gas attack was not just an inconvenience - it could effectively immobilise the enemy's guns.

The British deployed gas in France in 1940, but it wasn't used and was brought home before the fall to prevent handing the Germans a propaganda victory if it was captured. Given the threadbare defences in England after Dunkirk, I have no doubt Churchill would've used it against a German invasion.

[Xuc Xac]

Speaking as a british soldier who had his annual CBRN (Chemical Biological Radiological Nucular, formerly called just NBC) training last week, their are some nerve agents out thier which, in ideal condictions, you can inhale a leathal doseage of in a single breath.

Ah, yes. That's some good training. Did they tell you that the nucular process all begins when the nulecule comes out of its nest?

[Philistine]

The "threadbare defenses in England after Dunkirk" would have more than sufficed to wreck any attempted landing by Nazi Germany.

Probably the dirtiest little secret of the Battle of Britain is that the Germans never had the capability to mount a cross-Channel invasion; even if they'd driven the RAF out of the coastal bases, the fighters would simply have relocated north of London - far enough that they'd have been safe from Luftwaffe attack, but still close enough to interfere with any attempted amphibious assault. Or more likely, they'd have been close enough to interfere with the Luftwaffe's attempts to protect their invasion fleet from the Royal Navy, because the Kriegsmarine certainly didn't have the force to stand up to Home Fleet. Worse yet, even if the Germans had been able to get their landing force across unmolested, said force would have been all-infantry, with only the equipment and supplies they could carry on their backs. No chance of artillery or armor support, and no chance of reinforcement or even resupply for at least three days... Truly, there was no part of the Seelowe plan which was not disastrously bad.

[Storm Bringer]

Ah, yes. That's some good training. Did they tell you that the nucular process all begins when the nulecule comes out of its nest?

i'm sorry, was thier a constructive comment in thier or a nikpick over spelling?

[MarkusWolfe]

The "threadbare defenses in England after Dunkirk" would have more than sufficed to wreck any attempted landing by Nazi Germany.

Probably the dirtiest little secret of the Battle of Britain is that the Germans never had the capability to mount a cross-Channel invasion; even if they'd driven the RAF out of the coastal bases, the fighters would simply have relocated north of London - far enough that they'd have been safe from Luftwaffe attack, but still close enough to interfere with any attempted amphibious assault. Or more likely, they'd have been close enough to interfere with the Luftwaffe's attempts to protect their invasion fleet from the Royal Navy, because the Kriegsmarine certainly didn't have the force to stand up to Home Fleet. Worse yet, even if the Germans had been able to get their landing force across unmolested, said force would have been all-infantry, with only the equipment and supplies they could carry on their backs. No chance of artillery or armor support, and no chance of reinforcement or even resupply for at least three days... Truly, there was no part of the Seelowe plan which was not disastrously bad.

So once again, we all learn a lesson: Don't mess with Britain.

[Philistine]

I'm not saying it could never be done by anyone ever, just that Germany had no hope of pulling it off at any time between 1939 and 1945. They'd have had to start working toward it years prior to the war - developing things like effective long-range fighters, assault landing craft capable of unloading heavy equipment across a beach, and a much more powerful surface navy, and then building these things in numbers sufficient to fight a long campaign.

Though of course nothing happens in a vacuum, and there's no telling what the British response to such developments in Germany would have been.

[Norsesmithy]

Just like the Allied Landings consumed a huge amount of industrial capacity, any major landing action against any of the world powers of the time was an undertaking most nations just didn't have the industrial output to even attempt. That we managed to launch several is a testament to the vast industrial output differential the axis powers were up against.

If it weren't for the fact that the United States had more than 50% of the worlds industrial capacity at the time, landing attempts launched the by the Allies would have been folly as well.

I don't know that 3rd Reich Germany could have produced the amount and kinds of material needed, without utterly abandoning other important projects and not fighting on any other front.

[Theodoric]

Among those interested in counterfactual history, Seelöwe as it was planned is basicly a joke. Even if the air battle would've been won, there's no way the Germans could transport their troops over the North Sea or the English Channel in Rhine-barges, set up a firm beachhead in England and establish supply lines over the Channel without the Royal Navy interfering.

Though, ofcourse, this is all hindsight and we shouldn't judge the British people of 1940 for assuming the worst.

[Yora]

I don't know that 3rd Reich Germany could have produced the amount and kinds of material needed, without utterly abandoning other important projects and not fighting on any other front.

That's the real problem. they had so many things they wanted to do, all at the same time, that they eventually failed at all of them. Most projects wouldn't have been that much of a problem, if they hadn't have several campaigns and occupations running at the same time.
Though I really don't see how they could have hoped to get an invasion fleet by the royal navy.

[Norsesmithy]

You don't have to beat the Royal Navy on the open ocean, you just have to keep the Channel free.

Lots of small torpedo and rocket craft, radar pickets, good airsupport, minefields, and submarines could probably pull it off, IF Germany had time to integrate captured economies, build up material, no Ostfront, etc.

It would still be hard, and it would require effective suppression of the RAF, and some (diplomatic) way to stop the flow of material from America, including lend lease destroyers.