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

[Norsesmithy]

Any weaponized space stations possible with realistic technology, in a conflict between equal powers are going to be produced with an eye to enemy space denial. Orbital bombardment is only marginally faster than ballistic missiles, and much much more expensive to employ.

[Autolykos]

Point defense is a bit more difficult. Mostly because it's very mass intensive and probably not very effective against small inert items which can still destroy or disable a satellite.

I'd go a little further here. Point defense is only viable when combined with armor and/or evasion, as it will kill warhead or engine of the projectiles (if present), but not change the momentum of the projectile very much. Armor and spacecraft is mutually exclusive right now, and a large space station will have a hard time evading fast-moving projectiles shot from another satellite. If a "dumb" cannonball will easily kill your satellite, point defense is a waste of time.
I pretty much agree with Norsesmithy here - unless it is vitally important to scrape off another few minutes from your (or your enemies) reaction time, orbital bombardment is a phenomenal waste of resources right now.

Edit: While a satellite that shoots nukes to the ground may be pretty stupid, a satellite that *is* a nuke, flying in low orbit, could wreak serious havoc on enemy communications (and probably other infrastructure as well) without even a second of warning.

[Traab]

I'd go a little further here. Point defense is only viable when combined with armor and/or evasion, as it will kill warhead or engine of the projectiles (if present), but not change the momentum of the projectile very much. Armor and spacecraft is mutually exclusive right now, and a large space station will have a hard time evading fast-moving projectiles shot from another satellite. If a "dumb" cannonball will easily kill your satellite, point defense is a waste of time.
I pretty much agree with Norsesmithy here - unless it is vitally important to scrape off another few minutes from your (or your enemies) reaction time, orbital bombardment is a phenomenal waste of resources right now.

Edit: While a satellite that shoots nukes to the ground may be pretty stupid, a satellite that *is* a nuke, flying in low orbit, could wreak serious havoc on enemy communications (and probably other infrastructure as well) without even a second of warning.

True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.

[Storm Bringer]

True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.

pretty much. you get the height right, a single nuke can spread it's EMP over the entire of the USA.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.

Can I have a link to this article? It sounds pretty cool!

nevermind, found it.

[fusilier]

I'm not aware of nuclear tests that have fried satellites, but there was a high-altitude test in the early 1960s that caused street-lights to fail (along with other electrical problems) in Hawaii, around 900 miles away! The EMP effects of a nuclear weapon are apparently complex, and involve the local electro-magnetic field.

[fusilier]

I stand corrected: the test I referred to that disturbed streetlights in Hawaii, did knock out three satellites and damaged three others. However, it's not clear to me if it was an EMP that damaged the satellites or the radiation itself. Also, it should be remembered that this was 1962, and there weren't that many satellites up there.

[No brains]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.

[Traab]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.

Not very, Hell, I taught myself to throw knives in a couple of hours (Not straight, god your arm burns after awhile, it was a couple hours total over the course of a few days) a solid 10-15 feet to hit the target 8 times out of 10. Im sure there are better ways to do it, but it worked. Each weapon has its own balance that will need to be learned, but a bit of practice, and maybe a few tips and anyone can learn the basics quickly. After that its just more practice to get good at it.

Stars are a joke. A one eyed mentally handicapped 6 year old could throw them accurately. Axes arent that hard to learn to throw, hammers are fairly simple too I believe, rocks? If you can throw a baseball you can throw a rock. And I dont know many people who cant throw a baseball. Nets I dont know about, do you even throw them? Most of the time I see them being used its being held in one hand and swung around to tangle your opponent more than being tossed like a frisbee to wrap around someone 20 feet away. Or dropped on top of someone in a trap. :p Spears I cant speak for, but id imagine throwing spears are fairly easy, just think of them as heavier darts.

[Hawkfrost000]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.

Two of my freinds know how to throw knives, stars and axes. Its not that difficult, one of my friends has several years experience with them and will regularly send 3-5 knives at me during a sparring session.

I always take a shield as a secondary when i'm fighting him.

DM

[Dervag]

Yes, no one currently has Neutron bombs, but we did have them as recently as 2003 (W79Mod3), and it would only be the work of a couple weeks to assemble new ones.

Not in the quantity needed to carpet-murderbomb whole countries, though; that would be the work of years for the would-be genocidaire. Also...

How important is it to capture a population, in this day and age? I mean, these days you have neutron bombs. Would an invading nation be better off to just wipe out all the people and bring in their own populace?

I'm gonna go with "No." For one, if you turn out to be a genocidal maniac while trying to conquer territory with neutron bombs, if any other nuclear powers exist they will try to hit you while you're still busy dealing with the first country you attacked.

For two, neutron bombs are still huge nuclear blasts that knock down buildings for a mile or more around; it's not like the country gets off with no infrastructure damage.

For three, in a real modern society, birth rates are low enough that trying to genocide a neighboring population and waiting for your own population's kids to fill up the space means you're in for a hell of a long wait... during which time other people will probably destroy you to keep you from getting the same idea about their land.

True, I recall reading that in cracked.com list of 5 nuclear events we were lucky to survive, or something like that. Basically, we did a space detonation of some big nuke and it fried every satellite on that side of the freaking globe.

Eh, it wasn't that bad- Cracked probably exaggerated.

Also, it was in 1962, so "every satellite on that side of the freaking globe" was about six scientific research packages or something...

EMP has to be done very carefully to have anything like the desired effect, and in a lot of cases all it will do to things like industrial infrastructure is flip a circuit breaker. Oh, horrors, the production line shuts down until we send a guy down into th basement to flip the breakers!

Working on an alternate cold war setting. How viable are space stations/weapons platforms that carry nuclear missiles for ground bombardment and some point defence to counter ASAT weapons. Or would it be more practical to just use FOBS to put warheads in stable orbits, ready to deorbit on their targets when ordered.

The others are right- against an enemy with equivalent capability, these systems are more trouble than they're worth. They're in orbit, so they fly on known trajectories that can be plotted; they probably orbit low, so they're in reach of advanced ABM systems (which really ought to be in play by the time orbiting missile platforms with point defense are).

From what I know, you're actually best off with (believe it or not) bombers. Fast bombers. ICBMs and orbiting weapon platforms have the inherent limitation that their course can be predicted, which makes tossing a nuclear warhead into the path of the oncoming threat relatively easy. Manned bombers* are harder to predict, and at the kind of Mach 2 to 3 speeds that are acheivable, defending against the bomber starts to become quite difficult. You run into troubles because of the large area that any given bomber can occupy, and because of the flexibility with which they can change course, dodge incoming fire, exploit gaps in your radar and defense coverage created by previous attacks, and potentially shoot back at your fighters and missiles.

It's tricky.

*(potentially including some kind of orbiting space plane, but also high speed high altitude jet planes, if they're fast and high enough)

[gkathellar]

For three, in a real modern society, birth rates are low enough that trying to genocide a neighboring population and waiting for your own population's kids to fill up the space means you're in for a hell of a long wait... during which time other people will probably destroy you to keep you from getting the same idea about their land.

Also, as has been demonstrated by the facts-on-the-ground international politics technique, you don't need to eliminate the other population. All you need to do is insert your own.

[Spiryt]

Throwing stuff is as hard to learn as jabbing something with spear, wielding a shield, swing sword around...

On the very base it's easy, doing it effectively under different circumstances takes experience and talent, like pretty much everything else.

It sounds obvious, but what's more to add really?

[Autolykos]

How hard is it to learn to throw weapons effectively? That means anything, including, knives, axes, hammers, rocks, spears, stars, nets, and whatever else one warrior may have chucked at another at some point in time.

Depends a lot on what you mean by "effectively". It is speculated that the part of our brain concerned with geometry and spatial orientation has (at least partly) evolved that way so we can accurately throw stuff - so everyone basically knows how to do it. Hitting a target at some distance (or hitting a small target) requires some practice, depending entirely on how good you want to get (and the flying characteristics of your projectile. Killing or severely hurting the target (especially when wearing armor) also depends a lot on the weapon used - with some it will probably be near impossible, while it is rather easy with others (spears for example).

[fusilier]

I've done a little bit of axe throwing, it's not terribly difficult to learn. You want no wrist movement, and the trick is having the right distance -- otherwise you will hit the target with the handle. The people who taught me axe-throwing, were generally of the opinion that it's a neat trick, but in combat you are throwing away a perfectly good hand-to-hand weapon! :-)

[Lapak]

I've done a little bit of axe throwing, it's not terribly difficult to learn. You want no wrist movement, and the trick is having the right distance -- otherwise you will hit the target with the handle. The people who taught me axe-throwing, were generally of the opinion that it's a neat trick, but in combat you are throwing away a perfectly good hand-to-hand weapon! :-)

This guy has a theory about at least one particular kind of throwing axes after throwing some of them around: a properly-designed throwing axe can have terrifyingly random ricochet behavior that is disruptive to a formation targeted by them. Probably only useful in volleys, but it's an interesting idea!

[Wardog]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?

[gkathellar]

I'm no archer, but I would assume it's not nearly as stupid because part of the problem with firing guns sideways comes from the complexities of recoil and the weighting of the firing mechanism.

Still, I would imagine that aiming a bow sideways, at the very least, would be more difficult because you can't line it up with your body. Also, you'd have a much greater chance of hitting yourself in the arm with the string, and the angles on your body (especially your wrist) would be all off.

[Spiryt]

It's certainly possible, and certainly suboptimal in most cases.

Would have it's uses, but for what are they worth about 'technicalities" medieval illustrations, for example, suggest classic usage even in situations where such "horizontal' grip could have been useful.

Spoiler

Show

[Autolykos]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?

You can't reach full draw length (at least on a longbow), because your body gets in the way of the string. But that probably doesn't matter much anyway, because you won't have the force to pull a bow adjusted to your strength in this rather awkward position. And aiming it correctly would be next to impossible, because your eye would be pretty far away from the arrow and you won't be able to hold it consistently in the same direction.
The only use I can see for this would be a very low ceiling, where you can't hold the bow upright (but even then I'd try to hold it diagonally and still keep the upper body parallel to the bow, so I can aim the way I'm used to - well, mostly).

[DodgerH2O]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?

Completely sideways (as in parallel to the floor) I have never tried or seen, but several very good archers I've witnessed will angle their bow diagonally across their body instead of straight up and down. I believe all of them were hunters, but the context was in a practice situation.

(poor) Illustration:

Normal: I
Comic-people: --
What I've seen: /

[gkathellar]

Might it be possible to get a weird curve on a shot by holding the bow diagonally? Like a curveball-esque thing? That would explain why hunters might do it.

[Spiryt]

I would rather bet on simple necessity to find a right angle in bush/ otherwise cramped space where one can shoot and limbs won't ram into some branch or other obstacle on arrow release.

I don't think any angle would really change much in arrows path on any bigger scale.

[jaybird]

I suppose you're hidden better if there's no two meter stick poking out over your head.

[Spiryt]

With traditional bow without arrow rest, a bit of titling to the right (in case of arrow resting on the left side of staff) obviously can help with keeping arrow firmly in right place.

Hell knows if it really makes much difference for experienced archers though.

[fusilier]

I believe there is something called a "foot bow" which is used precisely in that manner (i.e. sideways, or horizontal). A cross bow is obviously configured that way too. I've also heard of people who were too weak to properly use a regular bow using their feet in a foot bow manner (in cases of exigency).

I think what others have said make sense about using a bow, while holding it sideways. Historically, archers are considered to have had trouble "taking cover", meaning that if they had cover, they typically had to expose themselves to shoot. For example, aboard ships archers were more exposed than crossbowmen. That's probably a good indication that it is impractical to use a bow sideways.

[No brains]

I've often seen characters in movies and fantasy/medieval comics holding bows sideways when shooting with them.

Is this a valid way of using a bow, or is it just as stupid as when done with guns?

Oh! I can be useful!

The poster below who noted that diagonal bow use is correct. Holding a short bow diagonally does help you line up your shot. The arrow can rest and you can see the line right to the target in a comfortable position.

I actually got the chance to play with a bow once. I had zero practice. When i tried a full vertical bow, my shots were far, FAR off the the side. When I switched to a more diagonal shot, however, my shots were absolutely perfectly straight. I only messed up in terms of elevation. This might have been because the arrow was tilted slightly upward from where I was aiming, but assuming I had more time to practice, I could probably get really accurate!

I kid you not, a diagonal shot fired by me went perfectly on line with the bulls-eye! It just went behind the target or into the dirt.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Which is why hunters tend to shoot this way...

You tend to get only one good shot in with a bow.

[Partysan]

While we're talking about bows, I recently rewatched Avatar (the Cameron thing) and noticed the Na'Vi were gripping the bowstring with a turned hand, i.e. the thumb facing down. Does that make any difference?

[fusilier]

Ok, that was something that bothered me about Avatar:

I don't have too much experience with bows, but I was told to nock the arrow in such a way that as the bow string pulled on my fingers, encouraging them to "unfurl", the rotational motion (i.e. the rotational motion of my fingers opening) would help press the arrow against the bow. -- Not sure if that makes sense or not, or if someone with more experience can correct me. -- Anyway, if this is correct, then using a reverse grip is fine, if you nock the arrow to the outside of the bow (i.e. the bow is in between the arrow and your body). But in Avatar they nock the arrow on the inside of the bow and use a reverse grip.

EDITED -- I got my "inside/outside" backwards, so I attempted to correct it.