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

[fusilier]

Did some quick research (then had to wait for the database backup to complete), and I found this forum:

http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showth...post1056771536

That should link to a specific post (post #41 if it doesn't). I think my basic instinct that a inverted grip would cause the arrow to fly off erratically (unless the arrow was nocked to the otherside) is correct. Somebody on that forum noted that happened when they tried it. However, somebody else noted that the Na'vi seem to hold the arrow in place by looping a forefinger around it . . .

Anyway, the particular post linked above explains how it happened. Basically Cameron taught himself a crazy way of using a bow! When he told the archery instructors about it, they told him it wouldn't work, and he apparently demonstrated the technique to them. It doesn't sound like they accepted it as legitimate, but went ahead and worked with the actors so they would look good. The prop bows used had very low draw weights.

Oh, and you may have noticed that the Na'vi are left handed? That's because Cameron is left handed. :-/

[Thiel]

Plus, it's just more comfortable to draw it like that. When drawing a bow thumb up, so to speak, you're rotating your wrist as far as it'll go which can be uncomfortable to the average couch potato. Thumb down on the other hand and you're not rotating your wrist at all.

[Conners]

Anyone know much about double-bladed battleaxes? This guys goes off on a tangent about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE

However, I'm not so sure he's correct with his assumptions... The fact he described battleaxes in general as being unwieldy is also an odd sign.

[Xuc Xac]

Anyone know much about double-bladed battleaxes? This guys goes off on a tangent about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE

However, I'm not so sure he's correct with his assumptions... The fact he described battleaxes in general as being unwieldy is also an odd sign.

Watch his follow-up video here:
http://youtu.be/boioSxBIkfk

He's right. Double-bladed battle axes from history are symbolic. You wouldn't use one for fighting any more than you would use a fasces for fighting. I think the problem comes from artists who read about battle axes but didn't look at actual artifacts, then when they illustrated them, they used the wood cutting axes which their only reference.

[Spiryt]

Anyone know much about double-bladed battleaxes? This guys goes off on a tangent about them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE

However, I'm not so sure he's correct with his assumptions... The fact he described battleaxes in general as being unwieldy is also an odd sign.

Don't really listen to YT rants, so I'm not sure what's there but there probably indeed was not many double blades battle axes ever.

Pretty much no point of doing so, instead of wasting material to form to identical, or roughly identical blade, like we see in fantasy & stuff, one could form desired blade, perhaps larger one, maybe with back spike, or reinforced blunt part and so on.

Generaly we have some find of 'double' axes with drastically different heads on each side, which makes sense to add some versatility I guess.

Spoiler

Show

Other than that, we have Persian, Indian and also Ottoman etc. tabars and similar axes that often were double bladed, who had a lot of ceremonial value, most probably - with pleasing symmetric shape, or whatever.

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/disp...bum=48&pos=170

As far as Avatar bow grip goes -can anybody just post good picture/short video?

From description I can't possibly imagine how reversing drawing hand would make shooting anything else but gimped, and I'm couch potato by most standards.

[Beleriphon]

Plus, it's just more comfortable to draw it like that. When drawing a bow thumb up, so to speak, you're rotating your wrist as far as it'll go which can be uncomfortable to the average couch potato. Thumb down on the other hand and you're not rotating your wrist at all.

People that compete at a high level will use a reverse release, but they also tend to be using mechanical release mechanisms rather than their own fingers. So there are people that shoot reversed, but its almost entirely within competition.

Having done some competition shooting about 15 years ago (in high school) I can attest to firing a bow in different ways. A slight diagonal slant to the bow can make it easy to make any given shot since the arrow tends not to move once nocked, but any good modern bow has some kind of grip and a very light arrow rest.

http://www.martinarchery.com/2012/gailmartinrecurve.php

These folks have some nice examples of traditionally designed recurve bows. They're even wood for the most part, but do include the arrow rest I'm referring to.

[Thiel]

Don't really listen to YT rants, so I'm not sure what's there but there probably indeed was not many double blades battle axes ever.

Pretty much no point of doing so, instead of wasting material to form to identical, or roughly identical blade, like we see in fantasy & stuff, one could form desired blade, perhaps larger one, maybe with back spike, or reinforced blunt part and so on.

Generaly we have some find of 'double' axes with drastically different heads on each side, which makes sense to add some versatility I guess.

I suspect the majority of those axes are work axes. They certainly look a lot like the tools they used when I visited the Oseberg Ship

[Spiryt]

I suspect the majority of those axes are work axes. They certainly look a lot like the tools they used when I visited the Oseberg Ship

Very possible, it seems that a lot of them (the one on the large picture at least) were being found in warriors graves.

That would be some suggestion for martial use, especially that a lot of them apparently looked like 'standard' czekans only with blunt side flattened into some other blade.

[Roxxy]

Does anyone know precisely how long it takes to get proficient with a longbow (as in, capable of shooting accurately out to 100 feet, which is about what is expected from a 1st level D&D character)? I know it's a very long time, but I need something more specific.

Also, is it possible to mass produce something like D&D style leather or mail (chain or scale) and expect to be able to achieve a reasonable fit? Could it be done with splint mail or lamellar?

[Knaight]

Also, is it possible to mass produce something like D&D style leather or mail (chain or scale) and expect to be able to achieve a reasonable fit? Could it be done with splint mail or lamellar?

Mail was mass produced on several occasions, with the roman military being the most obvious example (after the Maurius reforms). Fit was not an issue. The same thing was seen in China with Lamellar, starting in quantity in the Warring States period (Qin in particular had a full on military industrial complex that was mass producing everything the military needed).

Anyways, question: Is there any basis, whatsoever on the whole "metal shafted polearm" thing (where metal shafted means a hollow metal tube)? I've found absolutely no reliable data that backs it, and it seems absurd. That said, stories about them are fairly old, and I might just have missed some edge case somewhere.

[Autolykos]

Does anyone know precisely how long it takes to get proficient with a longbow (as in, capable of shooting accurately out to 100 feet, which is about what is expected from a 1st level D&D character)? I know it's a very long time, but I need something more specific.

Not that hard actually. I could reliably hit the target at 50 feet after only a weekend of practice (the bow only had about 30-35 pound draw though), and I actually found it *harder* to hit at much shorter distances. It probably takes less than a month of *focused* practice to get reasonably accurate at 100 feet. Reliably hitting in the yellow (or even bullseye) at that distance is an entirely different game though.

[Mike_G]

In reality, being a good archer takes training of your muscles and being in good shape, not just getting accurate with the bow. Pulling the heavy bow repeatedly takes a lot of strength and endurance, so it's more complicated t5ahn if you or I were to buy a fairly light bow and see how long until we can hit a target. The heavy pull was necessary to inflict a debilitating wound at range on an enemy who could be expected to have some armor on.

Traditionally, Englishmen were supposed to train every week with the longbow. The fall in popularity wasn't that better weapons came along, so much as fewer archers were trained, so if you could train up a longbowman in a month, I think that would have been done.

[gkathellar]

Anyways, question: Is there any basis, whatsoever on the whole "metal shafted polearm" thing (where metal shafted means a hollow metal tube)? I've found absolutely no reliable data that backs it, and it seems absurd. That said, stories about them are fairly old, and I might just have missed some edge case somewhere.

I've seen a 20 pound steel staff used for training purposes IRL, and I know my sifu uses a 40 pound staff as well. But only for training — the concept at play is training the body to produce so much power that you could hit with a wooden-shafted staff or spear with as much force as a steel one. Actually using a weapon that heavy in combat would be exhausting even if you could move it quickly enough to be functional.

Likewise, I've heard anecdotally that Yang Cheng Fu trained with a 23-pound broadsword, but no doubt if he actually meant to chop someone's head off he would have switched to a normally weighted blade.

[Traab]

I've seen a 20 pound steel staff used for training purposes IRL, and I know my sifu uses a 40 pound staff as well. But only for training — the concept at play is training the body to produce so much power that you could hit with a wooden-shafted staff or spear with as much force as a steel one. Actually using a weapon that heavy in combat would be exhausting even if you could move it quickly enough to be functional.

Likewise, I've heard anecdotally that Yang Cheng Fu trained with a 23-pound broadsword, but no doubt if he actually meant to chop someone's head off he would have switched to a normally weighted blade.

While I agree that it is unlikely people would just randomly make their weapons heavier, that doesnt mean that there werent any heavy melee weapons out there. Ive been trying to track down some numbers on it, but the bardiche, as an example, looks to be heavy as hell, relatively speaking. Its also going to be a question of improved effect versus added weight. If adding metal to the haft of a polearm makes it stronger and less likely to break, that would have to be balanced against the added weight making it harder to use quickly and a decision would have to be made on whether its worth it.

[Spiryt]

Anyways, question: Is there any basis, whatsoever on the whole "metal shafted polearm" thing (where metal shafted means a hollow metal tube)? I've found absolutely no reliable data that backs it, and it seems absurd. That said, stories about them are fairly old, and I might just have missed some edge case somewhere.

There were quite a lot of axes, maces, hammers etc. with at least partially metal shaft.

Some of them were of size that could indicate two handed use, as somehow 'personal' two handed weapon.

Never've seen actual 'polearm' like that though.

I would guess that large lenght wouldn't really work well with it.

Hollow steel tube axe works well due to it's compactness - with 60 cm of lenght pretty thin steel shaft can resist impacts well enough.

[Traab]

You know, this is bugging the hell out of me. Ive been to 10 different sites, all talk about how big the bardiche is, and how it uses the heavy weight of the blade to do its damage, but none will give a range of weight for the damn thing!

[gkathellar]

While I agree that it is unlikely people would just randomly make their weapons heavier, that doesnt mean that there werent any heavy melee weapons out there. Ive been trying to track down some numbers on it, but the bardiche, as an example, looks to be heavy as hell, relatively speaking. Its also going to be a question of improved effect versus added weight. If adding metal to the haft of a polearm makes it stronger and less likely to break, that would have to be balanced against the added weight making it harder to use quickly and a decision would have to be made on whether its worth it.

Right, but on heavier weapons like a bardiche, weight is concentrated at the end of the weapon, near the striking point. If the shaft were made of metal, all you would really be adding is increased lift/swing/thrust difficulty. Remember — heavy polearms can be a lot more taxing than shorter heavy two-handed weapons, because of weight distribution and pounds per square inch.

I'm not saying lighter = better. My experience is actually that weight is good, until you hit a certain threshold. Rattan is better than bamboo because it has a solid core and a heavier weight. Flippy, ultra-light modern wushu swords do everything worse than a proper, solid, heavy blade. But past a certain weight, weapons become impractical.

EDIT: Also note that the Bardiche had a short shaft and used broadly placed hands, mitigating the problems of weight to some extent.

[Spiryt]

Yes, museums have irritating habit of listing a lot of different stuff, but not weight.

And Bardiches are somehow neglected in research, compared to say, swords, like a lot of other polearms.

I however, seriously doubt that most of them was really very 'heavy' at all, compared to other polearms.

They had huge blades, yes, but also thin ones, simply large axe blade "flattened" further to create larger hewing area.

I somehow doubt that they're really weapons to do 'damage' trough weight more than any other axes, rather by large cutting area and usually nicely pronounced point - ideal for some stabbing. Generally for harming something with "weight" one would prefer mass of the steel concentrated more, not 'spread' like in Bardiche.

In this short topic there are some good pictures of blades, as well as complete dimensions of one from Cleveland Museum of Art.

As we can see, it weight 1.66 kg, and that is not really heavy. Haft looks dubious, and is quite probably replacement, so original one might have increased this weight a bit.

EDIT: Also note that the Bardiche had a short shaft and used broadly placed hands, mitigating the problems of weight to some extent.

Depends, many bardiches weren't really short in any way - haft approaching 6 feet weren't that uncommon.

[gkathellar]

Depends, many bardiches weren't really short in any way - haft approaching 6 feet weren't that uncommon.

Wikipedia says they were rarely above 5 feet, but I'll take your word for it.

[Spiryt]

Wikipedia says they were rarely above 5 feet, but I'll take your word for it.

Well, you don't have to:

Here longest one is 181cm, so it give's haft significantly above 5 feet.

Some may come later, but not that much data in the net, unfortunately...

[Roxxy]

I'd like to provide some background for my earlier questions. In my homebrew Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 campaign setting, a magical renaissance has dramatically improved people's lives. The world resembles the modern world in many ways, with urban dwellers outnumbering rural dwellers and agriculture being mostly handled with magitek and no longer the career of the majority of individuals. Military wise, things also look rather modern, even though the weapons and armor are medieval/early renaissance. Thanks to the magical mechanization of agriculture, it is possible to maintain a fairly well sized standing army and navy. As a result, the vast majority of soldiers are trained professionals. Even the part time militias (think modern day military reserves) are fairly well trained.

Feudalism has evolved beyond recognition with the addition of a massive amount of republican systems (that medieval lord sitting in yonder castle was elected by the people) and the rise of urbanization (with so many people in cities and agriculture heavily mechanized, the landholding noble isn't as important as in the past). One of the most telling symptoms of this is the fact that the mass of heavily armed and armored cavalry charging at you is not a group of knights who serve a noble lord and are most likely rich nobility who bought their own horses and equipment, but rather a group of individuals who can be from any social or economic class and who are most likely citizen volunteers who were equipped by the government. In game terms, the warrior class isn't used in this setting. Trained soldiers take levels in PC classes, and militia have a mix of non-warrior NPC class levels and PC class levels.

Magic assisted mass production is how weapons and armor are made. This has made good quality equipment much more easily available, and the government's soldiers are issued fairly good weapons and armor. Even your basic archer or swordfighter has pretty good gear (if from a wealthier country, likely masterwork). Basically, weapons and armor are made in factories, and even masterwork items can be mass produced (though they still cost more).

My questions are whether this mass produced armor would be able to fit (which seems to be quite plausible), and how easy it would be to take a fresh recruit, likely from the city, and train this individual as an archer. I know IRL crossbows were preferred do to the training issue, but armies in this world are much more professional, being long term standing armies, and better training would logically be available do to the fact that most soldiers aren't peasants hurriedly conscripted at the start of a war, but rather professionals or semi-professionals with a fair amount of training. I want to know if that means that I could realistically hand out longbows as the ranged weapon of choice, which is what I want to do.

[Spiryt]

Mail armor has this nice thing that it's 'wearable' even if it's only roughly fit - say, 'M' mail for 170 pounds dude, and 'XL' one for 250 pounds one.

However, for most 'professional' and optimal use it still requires to be fit rather well, so mass producing it without any participation of final wearer won't be ever optimal.

I know IRL crossbows were preferred do to the training issue, but armies in this world are much more professional, being long term standing armies, and better training would logically be available do to the fact that most soldiers aren't peasants hurriedly conscripted at the start of a war, but rather professionals or semi-professionals with a fair amount of training. I want to know if that means that I could realistically hand out longbows as the ranged weapon of choice, which is what I want to do.

In real life the were plenty of professional and seasoned crossbow experts as well. Legend of Wilhelm tell for quick reference of crossbow feats in folklore.

Anyway, there's not easy answer to this question, really.

Getting roughly proficient with a bow isn't really long at all, getting better and better is what simply takes years, so at some point you have solid archers instead of one's who can simply release arrow in enemy direction.

[Roxxy]

What about D&D style leather or lamellar? Is that easier to create a reasonable fit for by mass producing? I know it won't ever be a perfect fit, I'm just looking for something good enough, like modern day military issue body armor.

[Spiryt]

What about D&D style leather or lamellar? Is that easier to create a reasonable fit for by mass producing? I know it won't ever be a perfect fit, I'm just looking for something good enough, like modern day military issue body armor.

Pretty much any armor could have 'reasonable' fit, even if not made specifically for wearer at all.

In 15th century Europe munition grade breastplates were pretty popular choice for many 'cheaper' combatants.

Lammelar would probably be alright as well, wearer would just have to have some well fitting padding and customize fastenings etc. so armor would lie on him well.

[Roxxy]

Awesome! Thanks.

I'll lurk around. Perhaps someone will ask a question I can answer.

[gkathellar]

Well, you don't have to:

Here longest one is 181cm, so it give's haft significantly above 5 feet.

Some may come later, but not that much data in the net, unfortunately...

Right, but is that an average, or an exception designed for an exceptionally tall man?

Since Spiryt is helping you with armor, I'll just give you some other comments on this setting.

As a result, the vast majority of soldiers are trained professionals. Even the part time militias (think modern day military reserves) are fairly well trained.

This was pretty much true even before major urbanization occurred. Really, from the time of Alexander and his professional army (with some exceptions, of course). In fact, my understanding is that having a military class that was too large and too well trained became a real problem in Europe during periods of peace, because they would run around causing trouble. Food for thought — the distinction between modern armies and medieval ones isn't just a question of training, but of the relationship between socioeconomic status and the military.

One of the most telling symptoms of this is the fact that the mass of heavily armed and armored cavalry charging at you is not a group of knights who serve a noble lord and are most likely rich nobility who bought their own horses and equipment, but rather a group of individuals who can be from any social or economic class and who are most likely citizen volunteers who were equipped by the government.

Then you have to think about why these guys in particular have special training and special equipment and special equipment, if there's a standing army that recruits in the same way modern armies do. Knights were elite soldiers, who had access to training and tools that made them juggernauts of destruction on the field. Socioeconomic class is how this was historically determined, often accompanied by training from a very young age — how is it determined now? Are all knights commissioned officers? Do they have to pass special exams — and if so, does this essentially mean that they're all people who had access to training before joining the military?

Magic assisted mass production is how weapons and armor are made. This has made good quality equipment much more easily available, and the government's soldiers are issued fairly good weapons and armor.

Bear in mind that hand-forged weapons are generally better than industrially made ones, as long as the hand that does the forging is skilled. Does magitek allay that problem?

Feudalism has evolved beyond recognition with the addition of a massive amount of republican systems (that medieval lord sitting in yonder castle was elected by the people) and the rise of urbanization (with so many people in cities and agriculture heavily mechanized, the landholding noble isn't as important as in the past).

Depending on how "industrialized" magitek is, this could be very unlikely. Over time, the status of "lord" vanished because it was only a relevant term in land-based economic systems. Once you get a money-based system, the wealthy aren't lords — they're capitalists. Elected governments come into existence for related, but separate reasons.

In Europe's history, the smarter gentry of many countries really "bought in" to the industrial revolution so that the merchants wouldn't render them obsolete. They used their significant resources to invest in industrialization, becoming the first venture capitalists, because they saw that land-ownership was rapidly decreasing in relevancy as the primary form of economic status.

[fusilier]

It's conceivable that mail can be adjusted for fitting purposes, but if it's riveted that's probably more trouble than it's worth.

Basically, when clothing and other garments are mass produced they have several sizes, and they are produced according to a schedule (x small, y medium, z large, etc.). However, in the case of uniforms, the cuffs of tunics may be left unfinished, pants unhemmed, etc., for final finishing by company tailors. So, there is still some hand-finishing required. It might be possible to use a mix of mass production, and local hand-finishing in the manufacture and fitting of armor.

A friend who purchased a reproduction breastplate found it too wide, he modified it by bending the sides in -- I think he had to affix the leather straps himself, so that allowed some more custom fitting too. You won't get something as well fitting as custom made armor, but it will be better than simply wearing what comes out of the factory.

[Roxxy]

Thanks for the responses, guys. I'll be sure to take your advice into account, as some of it seems to be very good.

[Knaight]

I'd like to take a moment to remind everyone of just how bad some sources are. Also, anyone reading this thread will probably find this either hilarious or rage inducing:
A podcast episode on historical knights.

Yes, you heard that right. They actually said that armor was invented in Rome.

[Ashtagon]

I'd like to provide some background for my earlier questions. ...

Magic assisted mass production is how weapons and armor are made. This has made good quality equipment much more easily available, and the government's soldiers are issued fairly good weapons and armor. Even your basic archer or swordfighter has pretty good gear (if from a wealthier country, likely masterwork). Basically, weapons and armor are made in factories, and even masterwork items can be mass produced (though they still cost more).

An important question here. Is this post-industrial mass production, where an item of a specified 'fit' can be made to order quickly and cheaply, or is it "make me a thousand size 12 chain shirts" mass production?

My questions are whether this mass produced armor would be able to fit (which seems to be quite plausible), and how easy it would be to take a fresh recruit, likely from the city, and train this individual as an archer. I know IRL crossbows were preferred do to the training issue, but armies in this world are much more professional, being long term standing armies, and better training would logically be available do to the fact that most soldiers aren't peasants hurriedly conscripted at the start of a war, but rather professionals or semi-professionals with a fair amount of training. I want to know if that means that I could realistically hand out longbows as the ranged weapon of choice, which is what I want to do.

Mass produced light and medium armours could be made quite easily (about as easily as regular clothing chain store clothing), abnd fit about as well. Certain types (chain shirts, possibly others) are much more flexible, and can be considered "one size fits all". Heavy armours will typically need to be tailor-made to teh individual to avoid "combat chafing", even though someone of approximately teh same dimensions as the original wearer coudl physically put it on; they could wear it, but would expect constrant chafing which could eventually result in minor cuts in areas where teh armour has to allow movement.

executive summary: chain shirts can be mass produced, and most light/medium armours could too, depending on the size (ahem) of the army.

Weapons: The traditional saying is that to train a longbowman, you start with his grandfather. The truth isn't quite that extreme, but good longbowyers did require a lifetime of training that started in childhood. You simply aren't going to get a recruit trained up to military standards in archery in less than a year (assuming good nutrition too, which is reasonable in your world; RL archers took longer partly because of inadequate nutrition stunted archery muscle development).

While this amount of training is not impossible, it is unrealisitc to expect an army to spend a year on training when they could get an effective soldier in a month by focusing on a different weapon.