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

[averagejoe]

This thread is a resource for getting information about real life weapons and armor. Normally this thread would be in Friendly Banter, but the concept has always been that the information is for RPG players and DMs so they can use it to make their games better.

As far as I can tell, the previous threads don't exist any more, except Version V and Version VI. This is Version VII.

A few rules for this thread:

• This thread is for asking questions about how weapons and armor really work. As such, it's not going to include game rule statistics. If you have such a question, especially if it stems from an answer or question in this thread, feel free to start a new thread and include a link back to here. If you do ask a rule question here, you'll be asked to move it elsewhere, and then we'll be happy to help out with it.
• Any weapon or time period is open for questions. Medieval and ancient warfare questions seem to predominate, but since there are many games set in other periods as well, feel free to ask about any weapon. This includes futuristic ones - but be aware that these will be likely assessed according to their real life feasibility. Thus, phasers, for example, will be talked about in real-world science and physics terms rather than the Star Trek canon. If you want to discuss a fictional weapon from a particular source according to the canonical explanation, please start a new thread for it.
• Please try to cite your claims if possible. If you know of a citation for a particular piece of information, please include it. However, everyone should be aware that sometimes even the experts don't agree, so it's quite possible to have two conflicting answers to the same question. This isn't a problem; the asker of the question can examine the information and decide which side to go with. The purpose of the thread is to provide as much information as possible. Debates are fine, but be sure to keep it a friendly debate (even if the experts can't!).
• No modern real-world political discussion. As the great Carl von Clausevitz once said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means," so poltics and war are heavily intertwined. However, politics are a big hot-button issue and one banned on these boards, so avoid political analysis if at all possible (this thread is primarily about military hardware). There's more leeway on this for anything prior to about 1800, but be very careful with all of it, and anything past 1900 is surely not open for analysis. (I know these are arbitrary dates, but any dates would be, and I feel these ones are reasonable.)
• No graphic descriptions. War is violent, dirty, and horrific, and anyone discussing it should be keenly aware of that. However, on this board graphic descriptions of violence (or sexuality) are not allowed, so please avoid them.

With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!

[Endarire]

Let's assume I'm wearing a plated gauntlet made of steel that protects my entire hand. How much flexibility do I have in my fingers? Can I individually move my fingers?

[Karoht]

Let's assume I'm wearing a plated gauntlet made of steel that protects my entire hand. How much flexibility do I have in my fingers? Can I individually move my fingers?

If it's made properly and isn't a show piece? Yes, totally.

[Norsesmithy]

Responding to Fusilier's post in the previous thread, the reason why revolvers are mechanically more complex than semiautos (in general) is that a revolver needs a mechanism to advance the cylinder, but generally a semiauto feeds a round by virtue of the slide pushing a bullet up a ramp. Comparing a 1911 to a Smith and Wesson Model 10, the 1911 has 59 parts, 14 of which are either extraneous to the function of the weapon and not moving, whereas the model 10 has 81 parts, 11 of which are extraneous to the function of the weapon.

Now, newer semiautos, like the Glock, have fewer parts than the 1911, but newer revolvers have not made the same gains when it comes to reducing mechanical complexity.

[Zaq]

My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

[Daosus]

Well, the sword has gotten associated with the knightly class in Europe, and since they're the sort that get legends written about them....

There's also the fact that it's a prestige weapon. It's very expensive and requires specialized knowledge to make. As such, if you could afford it, you were an important dude. Whereas if you could afford an axe or a spear, well, you were a dude.

It is also a weapon that is quite deadly, quite versatile, and quite small (for the most part). That last bit means that unless you were expecting battle, your sword and dagger are likely the only weapons you might be carrying on a daily basis.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

There's also the fact that, unlike so many other weapons, the sword's sole purpose is to act as a weapon against other humans. Axes, hammers, and even spears are all adaptations of tools, whose original purpose was something else. The sword is the weapon of warriors.

[Fhaolan]

Let's assume I'm wearing a plated gauntlet made of steel that protects my entire hand. How much flexibility do I have in my fingers? Can I individually move my fingers?

Yes.

There were several styles of plate gauntlets. Mostly they had flexible fingers in order to grip weapons and the like. There were a few that didn't, but they tended to be late period jousting-as-a-sport equipment where they locked around reigns and the like.

Outside of those, plate gauntlets divided into a few broad groupings:

Demi-gauntlets: these didn't bother to plate over the fingers, just using reasonably heavy leather gloves to protect the fingers. I include this just for completeness.

Mitten gauntlets: These had a vaguely articulated set of plates that covered all the fingers at the same time. The plates were usually not actually attached to all the fingers, but either only a few or to straps that ran under all of them so that while the plates did articulate somewhat with the fingers you still had dexterity. Cheaper to make than other full plate gauntlets, but the somewhat crude plates just didn't cover quite as well as could be hoped.

Fingered gauntlets: These has more articulations, and individually plated each finger. Difficulty being, each individual finger plate was quite a bit lighter and thinner than the heavier mitten plates. So you'd get far more dexterity, and while each finger was 'guarenteed' protection, with lighter plates it was easier to damage all those articulations.

Hybrid gauntlets: These were mitten gauntlets, but the fingers also had small scales sewn to them, or in the case of the *really* expensive stuff it was fully articulated fingered gauntlets with heavy mitten plates added on top for extra protection. While more protective than the other styles, the added weight on your hands does wear you out faster.

And finally, there were several schools of thought where finger and hand protection was moved to the weapon rather than the armour. Basket hilts and it's cousins, 'sword gauntlets' and other odd devices came about from this line of reasoning.

For comparison for dexterity, it's very similar to wearing heavy leather gloves. It's as difficult to pick up a coin lying flat on a table in plate gauntlets as it is in heavy gloves, providing the gauntlets are of reasonable quality are are actually fitted properly to you.

[Joran]

My apologies if this has come up before.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend? I know that certainly not every legend has a sword in it, but to my (totally) untrained eye it seems like the number of legends in which swords feature prominently kind of outstrips the prominence of the sword as a historical weapon (compared to, say, polearms or bows). I repeat, there's plenty of exceptions, but it's still a pretty common thing, so far as I know. Is there anything at all that we can reasonably point to as a major contributor to this trend?

I'm not an expert in legends, but there's a couple notable exceptions. In Norse Mythology, the two major gods I know of Odin, with his spear, and Thor, with his hammer, don't carry swords.

In Chinese mythology, with Journey to the West, the Monkey King carries a staff, and his two companions carry a rake and a glaive weapon. In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, most of the characters carry glaives or other two-handed weapons rather than swords.

However, in more modern wuxia (Chinese fantasy), most characters carry a straight sword (jian). I'd guess the sword's popularity in wuxia is the same reason why swords are popular in Western fiction (basically as a mark of prestige: jian is a gentleman's weapon).

[Galloglaich]

This goes to a related question namely what makes swords better than axes or maces or spears and etc.

Yes, spears, axes, hammers even clubs appear frequently in mythology of varrious cultures.

Maces in particular are actually also very popular for royal and godlike figures, you will see them in most Hindu art featuring The Gods. The mace in fact evolved into the royal scepter which is still lone of the symbols of Western Monarchy.

But overall across the board swords are the most popular weapons arguably in art and literature.

I suspect the reason is swords had a high prestige on the battlefields. Clearly this is the case, better equipped armies carry swords as their principle backup weapons. The Romans, the Celts, the Vikings, the Samurai, Medieval Knights all used swords by preference even when their primary weapon may have beena spear or a javelin or a bow; and war-hammers, axes, maces and polearms may have been better at armor-piercing or for most general purposes.

I think the reason is deceptively simple. When you look at FBI Crime Stats, people who are wounded or killed with weapons almost always try to grab the weapon if they can. That is why stabbing victims usually have 'defensive wounds' on their hands. This is a lot easier to do with any kind of hafted weapon than it is with a sword. It's still possible with a sword it's just more difficult and risky. This works for experienced fighters as well as panciked people in their death throes; grabbing the haft is one of the first thing you learn to do against polearms in historical fencing of all types, from Germany to Japan and everywhere in between.

Swords are also very very generally speaking fast, agile weapons which have some utility at both long and short range and can attack multiple different ways. You need momentum for a mace or a hammer to work. You need some room for a spear. A sword can slice, chop, stab or even bash with the pommel. Due to their versatility and difficulty to take away from someone they are the ultimate sidearm.

Sidearms were very important in pre-industrial times because bows and crossbows and blackpowder firearms had slow rates of fire, spears and lances broke routinely and ammunition was limited for all other types of missile weapons. We don't think of sidearms as having the same importance today because we are used to our primary battlefield weapon (an assault rifle) being so effective, capable of killing 30 people at a time and shooting at any range from point blank to 500 meters or more. Primary battlefield weapons of the pre-industrial age were not nearly so lethal, in many cases their job was to 'soften up' the enemy while the sidearm actually finished the job. This what the sword was to the Roman Legionairre for example.

G.

[Karoht]

There's a common mis-conception that any idiot with a working arm can swing an axe or hammer effectively, and that even a peasant can use a spear effectively. But a sword represents a certain level of wealth, and a sword is typically viewed as a more complicated weapon, therefore requiring more skill and training and practice to use effectively than an axe or hammer or spear.

Almost all swords benefit more from finesse than the do strength. Where an axe or hammer is not going to really benefit much from added finesse, but placing more strength behind the blow with an axe or hammer will net you very noticibly increased results.

The finesse associated with a sword could be an aspect of the weapon's mythos, along with the wealth (and therefore prestige) associated with owning a sword.

Lastly, there is the shape. The sword is unmistakeably shaped like a cross. Even before Christianity, the cross was considered an important symbol.

Is it more or less effective than anything else? Well, that is a different debate altogether and entirely depends on the time period.

[Joran]

Sidearms were very important in pre-industrial times because bows and crossbows and blackpowder firearms had slow rates of fire, spears and lances broke routinely and ammunition was limited for all other types of missile weapons. We don't think of sidearms as having the same importance today because we are used to our primary battlefield weapon (an assault rifle) being so effective, capable of killing 30 people at a time and shooting at any range from point blank to 500 meters or more. Primary battlefield weapons of the pre-industrial age were not nearly so lethal, in many cases their job was to 'soften up' the enemy while the sidearm actually finished the job. This what the sword was to the Roman Legionairre for example.

G.

Would a curved blade sword, like a cutlass or a cavalry saber, be used as a side-arm?

I ask, because in most fantasy and legends involving swords, they're almost always straight edged. For instance, the main heroes of wuxia fantasy tend to have jian (straight swords) rather than dao (curved swords).

[Yora]

Depends a lot of what you mean by side arm. A weapon that is used as a backup when the primary weapon is unavailable or impractical, or as a main weapon carried at the belt?

May also depend on how likely it seems that a backup weapon for close range is needed.

Is there a generally agreed-upon explanation for why the sword is the de facto standard weapon in fantasy and (more interestingly) legend?

It looks really cool!

[Karoht]

In reply to this post in the previous thread:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...postcount=2608

My grandmother survived the bombings of London.
She said that had the Nazi's come over the channel, her dad kept a revolver in the house. It wasn't to fight the Nazi's with. It was to... avoid capture at any cost. Her dad fought in the war, but before shipping out he made it very clear what that gun was to be used for and when, going so far as to naming a street down the road to be used as an indicator of when to use it.

Now sure, the people of Britain would have fought them tooth and nail. But they were prepared for the possibility of losing the fight. The above statement is testiment to exactly how prepared they were.

[Yora]

Though that is quite crazy. People in Denmark, Norway, and France all had to deal with an occupation and while there certainly were some war crimes commited by german troops, it's wasn't anything near to what happened in Poland and Russia.
Even when the Russians invaded german territory, there was no wave of suicides (except for the leadership) and the Red Armies war crimes were at least as bad as those of the Wehrmacht.

[Karoht]

Though that is quite crazy. People in Denmark, Norway, and France all had to deal with an occupation and while there certainly were some war crimes commited by german troops, it's wasn't anything near to what happened in Poland and Russia.
Even when the Russians invaded german territory, there was no wave of suicides (except for the leadership) and the Red Armies war crimes were at least as bad as those of the Wehrmacht.

Could just have been my great-grandpa being paranoid.

It was said that the British people would have fought them for every house, every street, every city block, would have fought them with sticks and stones if need be.
Then again, there are all kinds of awesome real-life stories like that on the eastern front.

[Karoht]

With that done, have at, and enjoy yourselves!

...and somehow I missed this.

Nice Hat.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

...and somehow I missed this.

Nice Hat.

A man walks down the fora in that hat, you know he's not afraid of anything.

On topic: speaking of the blitz, why was it that Gloster Meteors were kept at home on V1 busting duty rather than used against the new Me 262 threat? While they developed tactics to successfully do so, why would the allies throw piston aircraft at jets when you have jets of your own?

[Norsesmithy]

Several reasons, including range considerations, altitude performance, and others.

Remember, Allied Piston engined fighters killed more Me-262s than Me-262s killed allied fighters, and while part of this had to do with the fact that the Me-262s were almost entirely dedicated to intercepting bombers, there were performance gaps that had yet to be closed.

Also remember that the Allied Fighters over Germany were, for the most part, escorting bombers, and it'd be damn tough for a Meteor to fly that slow for that long, have 2 or 3 dogfights, and make it back home.

[Yora]

Numbers were also an issue. During 1944 the Meteor was still in development and went through several revisions, while at the same time the allies did an insanely high number of bombing raids over germany. You'd rather keep producing a fighter that has proven itself to be reliable and with which pilots and ground crews are familiar, than to start mass production of a prototype model to replace the aircraft you already have.
In the massive scale of the air war over Germany, a couple of dozen aircraft wouldn't have made much of a difference.

[Galloglaich]

Would a curved blade sword, like a cutlass or a cavalry saber, be used as a side-arm?

I ask, because in most fantasy and legends involving swords, they're almost always straight edged. For instance, the main heroes of wuxia fantasy tend to have jian (straight swords) rather than dao (curved swords).

Yes of course curved blades were used like that. Sabers were used by cavalry whose primary weapon was a lance or a firearm or a bow. There were somewhat less curved single edged swords like messers and falchions in wide use in Europe which were sidearms for infantry, and of course inward-curving swords used by the Greeks, Romans, Turks, Indians and others such as the Falcata, Kopis, Macheria, Yataghan, Sosun-Pata etc. etc. which were all also sidearms.

But sabers didn't appear widely in Europe or the Middle East until the Renaissance.

In China the Jian began to be associated with the upper classes from (if I recall correctly) the Ming Dynasty or maybe earlier, when it's use was banned by commoners and phased out by the army. It acquired a role akin to the rapier or the smallsword, hence it's popularity in wuxia.

But there were versions of the dao which were also high status blades used by Administrators, Mandarins, Aristocrats and high ranking military officials (the latter being of lower status).

Dao used for the army in various versions could be rather primitive, but there were extremely sophisticated Dao some of which featured "rolling pearls" or small silver ball-bearings in the spine which rolled back and forth, these were undoubtedly only for the use of very important people.

On the battlefield, generally speaking, swords are always sidearms. There are a few exceptions, but the primary weapon is almost always a spear, a polearm, or a missile weapon of some sort. As I said though, swords (and other shorter weapons) remained extremely important because they were how battles were finished and how an individual warrior or soldier protected himself when things weren't going well.

And yes they were a bit harder to use, some more than others. A short sword is fairly straightforward, fencing techniques for (hand and a half sized) European longsword or Jian is pretty counter-intuitive, fencing with a rapier requires significant training.

G.


EDIT: Incidentally I do not buy the idea that swords were carried out of fashion or because they resembled a cross, I think that is a cliche.

[Ceric]

In Chinese mythology, with Journey to the West, the Monkey King carries a staff, and his two companions carry a rake and a glaive weapon. In the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, most of the characters carry glaives or other two-handed weapons rather than swords.

There's a bit of a hierarchy in Chinese weapons based on how difficult they are to learn. Dao are the easiest, only a few years. Jian are a bit harder. The staff-based weapons are the hardest, and that's why the most powerful legendary figures carry them. I don't know if this translated over to real soliders and real fights, because a sword is better than a polearm for reasons already described.

[Crow]

I don't know if this translated over to real soliders and real fights, because a sword is better than a polearm for reasons already described.

In many cultures, the sword was often the weapon of last resort.

[Norsesmithy]

In many cultures, the sword was often the weapon of last resort.

Perhaps the claim that the sword was "better" than the polearm should be amended with "in single combat".

Even then there are probably some exceptions, but I think that there is a pretty strong argument for that claim.

Change in single combat to "for personal protection" and I think the claim becomes even stronger, because things like the Knightly Pollaxe are right annoying to carry around, compared to a sword in a baldric.

[Fhaolan]

Then again, there are all kinds of awesome real-life stories like that on the eastern front.

I have a collection of stories from my grandparents about WWII in Britain.

My grandmother met my grandfather during the war. He was a turbine engineer by trade, and so he wasn't allowed to go to the front, he was required to stay behind and supervise women that were assembling detonators in London. My grandmother apparantly deliberately let springs fly all over the place just to have him bend over to pick them up. I guess my grandfather had a nice ass. Things don't change much, do they?

The funny story was that she showed up the factory early one day, and in the breakroom (or change room, not sure), she found a german bomb had come through the roof and hadn't detonated. When the rest of the crew showed up, they took the bomb, mounted it on a plaque with a sign below saying 'Rene's Bomb' (Grandma's name was Irene.)

I hope they defused it. Though with the way they dealt with things then, they may not of.

Unfortunately, grandma's not in a fit state to tell me where the factory was precisely. I'd like to head over to England some day, and see if the place is still there, and wheter the bomb is still there.

[Spiryt]

Perhaps the claim that the sword was "better" than the polearm should be amended with "in single combat".

Even then there are probably some exceptions, but I think that there is a pretty strong argument for that claim.

One would have define "single combat" as there are so many forms of it... As well as what sword and what polearm we exactly talk about.

Modern reenacting steel fights suggest that polearms from spears to glaives are actually very potent in duels, from obvious reach striking possibilities. Of course, such "fights" have tonnes of reason as for why they can't resemble "real thing", but nothing changes basic handling qualities.

Generally, the more armor swordman has, the easier he can handle the reach and polearm ability to counter his closing in with short stab or whatever.

But again, the more armor involved, the less useful most swords become.

So in all, as always in such broad matters, nothing can be called simply better than something else.

[Joran]

Several reasons, including range considerations, altitude performance, and others.

Remember, Allied Piston engined fighters killed more Me-262s than Me-262s killed allied fighters, and while part of this had to do with the fact that the Me-262s were almost entirely dedicated to intercepting bombers, there were performance gaps that had yet to be closed.

Also remember that the Allied Fighters over Germany were, for the most part, escorting bombers, and it'd be damn tough for a Meteor to fly that slow for that long, have 2 or 3 dogfights, and make it back home.

And also I believe most of the Me-262s were actually destroyed on the ground. Having massive air superiority allowed the Allies to simply bomb the factories and the airfields where the Me-262s were built and housed; they didn't need to dogfight them.

[averagejoe]

...and somehow I missed this.

Nice Hat.

Pretty cunning, don't ya think?

[Xuc Xac]

There's a bit of a hierarchy in Chinese weapons based on how difficult they are to learn. Dao are the easiest, only a few years. Jian are a bit harder. The staff-based weapons are the hardest, and that's why the most powerful legendary figures carry them. I don't know if this translated over to real soliders and real fights, because a sword is better than a polearm for reasons already described.

Actually, the staff is supposed to be the easiest. Other long weapons are basically "staff techniques + extra stuff". They say that it takes 100 days to master the staff, 1000 to master the Dao, and 10,000 to master the Jian.

Many powerful legendary figures carry staves because they are simple weapons. For some of them, the simple staff indicates that they are enlightened and not materialistic. For others, it's supposed to show how badass they are because they can beat anyone with a simple stick instead of a fancy sword. For others, it's supposed to show off their strength (Sun Wukong's staff is actually a load-bearing pillar that he stole from a celestial palace, which is why it can change size from toothpick to Giant Redwood tree) or poverty (Little John uses a staff because it was free and he can't afford anything else).

[Subotei]

On topic: speaking of the blitz, why was it that Gloster Meteors were kept at home on V1 busting duty rather than used against the new Me 262 threat? While they developed tactics to successfully do so, why would the allies throw piston aircraft at jets when you have jets of your own?

Probably the effective range of the Meteor was not great enough to accompany long range bombers. Besides the ME262 was not that superior to the late war allied piston engined fighters - late model Spitfires were as fast or faster than ME262s. The performance gap only opened significantly once proper swept wing fighters came out a few years later.