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

[Galloglaich]

Fighting from the front may be a strategic disadvantage. However, if your army is a citizen militia (like much of Greece), leading from the front may be the only way to even get your army out in the field.

Plus, for warfare between Greek states, their model of front-leadership and aggressive close combat made sense. By concentrating the fight at one place, there is little damage to the surrounding areas, the conflict is resolved without too much bloodshed, and most of those who instigated the conflict are likely dead. There is no siege warfare, or cattle raiding, or any of the other ways that neighboring states can destroy each other economically. By settling disputes in an agreed-upon, decisive fashion, the Greeks could prevent the conditions of endemic warfare.

That is a good point, part of this in the Greek context has to do with the more ritualistic style of combat which can go right over into the realm of (rough) games and sports. It is part of a natural tendancy to try to reduce the destructive impact of war, since if the fields are burned the victor will starve alongside the losers. This was also true with the Celts, the Japanese before the Mongol invasion, and many other people in history. It's the origin of games like Lacrosse and Hurling. And probably the Olympics.

G.

[Galloglaich]

Another thing about leading from the front, is that the leader can place himself in the middle of combat, and orders can be issued immediately to respond to the events. Also, the leader can indicate where the rest of the formation should be, by placing himself close to the standard or whatever flag indicates the formations location, which gives him the ability to directly control the formation. For small (by later standards) battles, which come down to melee, leading from the front may give a leader greater control over the battle.

Yep and also remember, the leader often has a cadre of well equipped tough guys with him, like Alexanders Companions or the Hirthmen Huskarls of the late Vikings, who were useful 'fire brigade' to impose on parts of the battlefield in order to achieve local victories at critical spots.

As I alluded to above, early Hoplite warfare in particular was quite formalized. They used to put all their strongest guys on the right flank, and all their weakest on the left, so each armies strong forces attacked the others weak forces (must have sucked to be put on the left side). Obviously this changed as they encountered foreign enemies with a more systematic approach to warfare, but only as much as it needed to.

As for the effectiveness of militias -- I'm curious to understand where the cliche comes from. My first guess would be English militia in the 18th century, especially in the American colonies. Many of them failed to drill, and some were very poorly equipped, leading regular British officers to have a poor opinion of them. Although, I can think of a few British militia units during the French and Indian War that seem to have performed well. By contrast, Spanish militia in Louisiana and Mississippi region were known to drill regularly, often drilled by regulars who travelled from town to town, and were often well equipped by the crown, even with uniforms.

The other area would be Italian states which switched to Condottieri during the late middle ages, early renaissance -- but even more detailed study there shows that mercenaries were often augmented by militia, and militia were never irrelevant to military forces.

I agree in both cases. Good point about the Spanish. Here in Louisiana we still have a large community of "Islenos", people from the Canary islands who were brought here by the Spanish to hold ground against the English. Their reputation for toughness and competence remains to this day.

G.

[GungHo]

Are there any modern pistols (ie WWI or later) that use rifle cartridges? (especially battle rifle or assault rifle sizing). Are rifle cartridges able to be fired safely from a pistol-sized barrel?

There are a number of "pistols" that are built on a AR-15 action that fire 5.56. Note, they are basically an AR-15 with a short barrel/gas system and no stock, and that's exactly what they look like. Some have an abbreviated recoil tube for the bolt carrier. Some don't even have the tube... not sure how they manage that (never took one apart... never been in the market for that kind of thing), though I do know those had a rod/piston set up, so who knows what else they altered with the bolt.

There are also several Thompson Center pistols that are basically break actions attached to a short barrel and a pistol grip. They made them in a lot of calibers... from .22 LR to .45-70. That's a little deceptive... while they did make .243s, they ran into pressure issues when they went up to .308 or higher cartridges (in terms of pressure). Something like a .30-06 or .270 would destroy the action.

Thompson also made bolt action pistols years ago as did a couple of other companies that have fallen by the wayside... you could use higher pressure calibers in those, but no one really shot them outside of a Ransom Rest.

There are several revolver makers that make .30 carbine, .30-30, and .45-70 revolvers. I have a friend who likes his BFR .45-70, though I think he gets more of a kick out of seeing people be too scared to shoot it.

Taurus at one time was planning to make a Raging Bull revolver in .223. No idea if it ever made it to market. I certainly wouldn't be the first in line shooting it. That's a heck of a lot of pressure to put on a cylinder... even if it is thick walled. Taurus makes good pieces, but at the end of the day, they're not a top-level gunmaker.

[Conners]

You know how lances break in jousting tournaments? Why is that? What causes a jousting lance to break? It it just any sort of solid impact with the other rider?

[Yora]

No it's a safety feature. They are specially designed to break on a good impact. I think thesy are hollow as well, which explains how anyone can hold them up.
The way they are build, they have enough push to kick one rider out of the saddle, but are weak enough to not penetrate the armor.

Though they are still dangerous, there have been some accidents in which large splinters slipped between the colar and the helmet and killed the knight.

[The Boz]

The tournament lance will either deflect or shatter as a safety feature. Actual lances used in combat are still useful for only one charge because the lance is heavy, unwieldy, and it's difficult to get that 200 pound corpse off it in any reasonable time span. And these also break a lot as well. I think modern lances used in fares employ some kind of powdered substance that has ~0 chance of creating dangerous splinters.

[Spiryt]

It might have been "safety feature" but the thing is that actual battle lances were breaking left and right anyway.

In pretty much any literal source about polish hussars from 16th century there's constant mention about breaking the lances and picking up new ones.

With very long piece of wood, and very violent impact horse charge could produce, wood was prone to snapping.

And since after the charge if you don't ride straight back, you pretty much have to drop lance anyway....

[Traab]

The solution is obvious, lances should be made out of 20 foot long lengths of solid steel. With a fist on the end. That way you knock someone the %$# out, dont break your lance, and dont get them impaled on it and make you drop it.



What?

[The Boz]

Also, knights should all wear belts of giant strength to use that lance.

[Traab]

Also, knights should all wear belts of giant strength to use that lance.

/makes dismissive noise

[Knaight]

The solution is obvious, lances should be made out of 20 foot long lengths of solid steel. With a fist on the end. That way you knock someone the %$# out, dont break your lance, and dont get them impaled on it and make you drop it.

Obviously, the trick is to use hollow aluminum lances instead. They don't break, are easier to remove, and are obviously well within medieval metallurgy. Plus, its not like aluminum is a precious metal or anything.

[Xuc Xac]

Obviously, the trick is to use hollow aluminum lances instead. They don't break, are easier to remove, and are obviously well within medieval metallurgy. Plus, its not like aluminum is a precious metal or anything.

Since this thread is for people who don't know any better to come for information, maybe we should refrain from sarcasm that could be misleading if taken at face value?

[Knaight]

Since this thread is for people who don't know any better to come for information, maybe we should refrain from sarcasm that could be misleading if taken at face value?

Maybe. Though I figured that it was obvious enough (smileys included, response to 20 foot long steel lances, so on and so forth). And aluminum is a good material for light jousting, as its used today in that limited capacity.

[Conners]

Know any fantastic examples of elite warriors mopping up less-skilled "fighters"? Preferably something better than vikings slaughtering women and children...

Just wondering if there's any "heroic" stories, of a few men cutting a path through vaster numbers. Extreme cases are always interesting to hear about, too.

[Spiryt]

So do you mean actual battles and similar stuff, or stories and legends that emerged trough the history?

As far as actual events go, there are quite a lot of such, although "elite" "mopping up" are always pretty situational things

Battle of Montgisard - only Templar knights would be probably considered "elite warriors" though, dunno if there are any detailed sources about composition of forces there.

[Knaight]

Know any fantastic examples of elite warriors mopping up less-skilled "fighters"? Preferably something better than vikings slaughtering women and children...

Just wondering if there's any "heroic" stories, of a few men cutting a path through vaster numbers. Extreme cases are always interesting to hear about, too.

Look at the Yellow Scarves Rebellion - actually, either of the events by that name. Both are in Han China, or at least, nominally Han China, prior to the Warring States Period, and both are large scale rebellions that were suppressed quite easily. Granted, that probably had less to do with the warriors than the leadership, but the government troops* were better equipped, better trained, and in general better.

For that matter, the fall of the Yuan Dynasty might be a period worth looking at as well. There were a lot of battles in it, with varying degrees of competence, and while the Yuan eventually fell due to being horribly outnumbered, that's not the case of all events in it.

*Inasmuch as that concept is even applicable.

[Demon of Death]

This question sounds kinda dumb/stupid in my head, but I figured I may as well ask it, to get a definitive answer.

The question is thus; Can a Mace, like such, have an extendable chain to turn it into a Flail,oh and in Medieval times is the setting, but if it can be done in Modern times, then it has precedence.

Feel free to call me out on being dumb on this question.

[The Boz]

Sure, I can think of some solutions for that. Don't know if it ever has actually been done, but it can be, definitely. A chain here, a slot there, a screw on the bottom, not a problem.

[Spiryt]

There's about no reason why it couldn't be done with a little bit of effort, but I've never seen anything like that.

And from 15th to 18th century, there were a lot of crazy stuff being made - just because somebody wanted to build something like that apparently :

Combination weapons

Assuming that somebody would make something like that, it wouldn't be actually practical weapon, similarly to all those hammer with pistols in the link or whatever - a nifty toy, mostly.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

How would you use the hammer on those sword-hammers? Would you really hold the blade and hit people with the hammer-crossguard?

[Fhaolan]

How would you use the hammer on those sword-hammers? Would you really hold the blade and hit people with the hammer-crossguard?

According to the site in question, those sword-hammers are actually swordcanes with hammer/pick heads. When using the hammer, the blade *should* be inside the cane still.

[Conners]

You know how in a lot of sci-fi they use laser-swords, or futuristic plate armour, or large axes? I was wondering if there's any possibility of such things having a function in the future.

Let's say we had space-ships. One thing to note, is that if you had really good armour, guns capable of penetrating it might also blow a hole in the ship...?
Another possible stopper for guns, would be if explosive gas was in the vicinity--although rail guns would probably work just fine...

The above examples are taken from one of my preferred sci-fi series. Of course, the books were written in the 1980s... so it's understandable if it isn't accurate to how thing will turn out.


Just curious, since it's certainly popular to give melee weapons to super technological future worlds.

[B!shop]

You know how in a lot of sci-fi they use laser-swords, or futuristic plate armour, or large axes? I was wondering if there's any possibility of such things having a function in the future.

Herbert's Dune explain the use of melee weapons with personal shields blocking high velocity objects: so to hit someone carring this personal shield you must attack him with something slower than a bullet.

Also, melee weapons are even today ceremonial symbols (e.g. military swords/daggers), mostly useless in combat but you could think of them as effective weapons.

[The Boz]

Herbert's Dune explain the use of melee weapons with personal shields blocking high velocity objects: so to hit someone carring this personal shield you must attack him with something slower than a bullet.

Also, hitting someone shielded with a laser was suicidally genocidal.

[Mike_G]

Melee weapons are making a comeback as urban warfare cuts the range of engagement down to nothing, as you meet the enemy coming around a corner or through a door.

In theory, if we are talking about boarding actions or action on a space station, the close quarters may well lead to the use of melee weapons. The current choice for close quarters, the pistol or SMG, doesn't do very well against an armored enemy, so you may be be better off knocking down an armored foe and jamming the point of your bayonet under his gorget than flattening 9 mm rounds against his breastplate.

That said, melee weapons will always be the weapon of last resort. Even in the black powder era, few men died of bayonet wounds compared to musketry. It's psychologically a lot easier to shoot somebody than beat or hack or stab him to death.

[Yora]

That's the reason why in recent years there have been many weapons the size of SMGs that fire special armor piercing bullets instead of normal pistol rounds. Like the P90 and MP7.
The best of both worlds, but they perform poorly against non-armored targets as they pass straight through the body instead of expanding all their energy on the target.
Police usually wants the characterristics of 9mm parabellum and military still has their assault carbines, so they are not that frequent.

[Conners]

Penetration is actually what you want bullets to do, from what I learnt from reading an FBI study on handgun injuries/fatalities. The stuff about bullets expanding, from what the report said, is a popular myth.

Of course, some bullets are designed to shatter into lots sharp pieces that but into the body. Perhaps that's why armour-piercing bullets are less effective on unarmoured targets...?


On the subject of bullet penetration: How is the "Penetration vs. Protection race" going, in man-carried weaponry/armour?

Currently, I think there is a type of armour which can stop just about any man-carried gun, short of explosives. However, it was a very bulky sort of armour, and didn't cover the arms and legs from what I recall. So, while technically capable of making you bullet-proof, it leaves you as a slow, easy target, where the enemy just need to remember to shoot at your knees.
Plus, if the armour is hard to move around if, I doubt soldiers can freely travel around in such gear.
That is, assuming I'm not misinformed.

[Yora]

The main purpose of body armor is not to make you invulnerable to gunfire, but rather to improve your chances to survive a bullet wound.
Kevlar vests can stop 9mm bullets quite reliably from what I know, but that still leaves arms, legs, and head exposed. And rifles and armor piercing rounds can still penetrate.
Military body armor is a lot tougher. Ceramic plates can stop rifle rounds, but they shatter on impact and lose much of their protective ability after a hit.

But then there are also hand carried rifles that fire .50 BMG rounds. Those rifles are designed to destroy vehicle engines and I am quite sure that there is no form of body armor that would stop that. But you would very rarely have to face such things, as compared to kalashnikovs and 5.56mm rifles.

Body armor greatly improves your chance to survive hits, but it's still best to avoid getting hit as much as possible.
Here's a video of some soldiers pulling out a huge metal shard that they found stuck in one soldiers body armor that they didn't notice for a week. Yes, it's a video found on the internet, but it looks pretty authentic to me.

[Spiryt]

The stuff about bullets expanding, from what the report said, is a popular myth.

Uh.... It's not myth at all, it happens a lot, it depends on many, many factors though.

People tend to 'streamline' it to "bigger round more wound etc." while in reality it's pretty complicated.

But lead bullets deform quite easily on relatively 'giving' obstacles, so yeah, they can deform a lot in body too.

Adding copper jacket to, say, .45 will change it quite a lot.

Handguns often don't propel bullet fast enough to cause it to deform that much on impact, but still.

The best of both worlds, but they perform poorly against non-armored targets as they pass straight through the body instead of expanding all their energy on the target.

I'm reading a bit about HK 4.6 x 30 and it seems that, similarly to many other small, very fast bullets, it's actually prone to tumbling a lot during penetration, so in fact can be pretty lethal all in all.

[Beleriphon]

But then there are also hand carried rifles that fire .50 BMG rounds. Those rifles are designed to destroy vehicle engines and I am quite sure that there is no form of body armor that would stop that. But you would very rarely have to face such things, as compared to kalashnikovs and 5.56mm rifles.

The Barrent M81 and M82 Anti-Material rifles being the two most well known (the M81 is a pretty standard, if enormour rifle, and the M82 is a shoulder fired bullpup design designed to to take out slow moving low flying aircraft). There is some debate on whether using one a human target is breaching the Geneva Conventions, but then I don't think anybody hit by a .50 cal BMG round is any position to complain to the relevant authorities.

Body armor greatly improves your chance to survive hits, but it's still best to avoid getting hit as much as possible.

Yeah, body armour is really meant to try and turn a lie threatening bullet hit into a non-life threatening hit. Wearing a bullet proof vest, like a police vest, and get shot is still going to ruin your day. At a minmum you'll have a massive bruise and at worst you'll end up with broken ribs, but you wont be dead.