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

[Yora]

Sport-Tournaments are a completely different thing than warfare, and here it's both fighters with a polearm, but you can se them getting quite close to each other several times.

[TechnoScrabble]

So, I'm reading some of the debates about strategy used decades or even centuries ago and I notice that people are wondering or arguing over why a strategy didn't work or did when it shouldn't or were or weren't ever used.

I have an answer that covers some of them:

Compared to modern adults, people back then knew JACK ****E.

Can't really blame them, though.

[Ashtagon]

So, I'm reading some of the debates about strategy used decades or even centuries ago and I notice that people are wondering or arguing over why a strategy didn't work or did when it shouldn't or were or weren't ever used.

I have an answer that covers some of them:

Compared to modern adults, people back then knew JACK ****E.

Can't really blame them, though.

I've seen this referred to as the "Your Ancestors Were Dummies" theory.
The most notable example was when the then-Rhodesian government claimed the ruins of ancient Zimbabwe were natural rock formations.

[Fhaolan]

You know, people always talk about getting up in the reach of Mr. Spearperson, but at least in my limited sparring experience that's not really particularly useful. Sure it sometimes works, but what happens more often than not is that the spear fighter just takes a step backwards, brings their weapon back in line and stabs you in the stomach.

If a single step back brings the point into line, the opponent isn't inside your reach yet. If their shorter weapon can reach you while only being a single step in, you're probably using a short spear/poleweapon that doesn't really have a 'inside the reach' problem.

I'm thinking of the 10-12' infantry spears, not the 5-7' hewing spears. When I started doing this kind of thing, I was messing around with 18-20' pikes. Those are a *real* pain to work with. A single person with a pike is pretty darn useless, they only really work as a weapon in formation.

[Yora]

Time for Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. X.

[Mike_G]

You know, people always talk about getting up in the reach of Mr. Spearperson, but at least in my limited sparring experience that's not really particularly useful. Sure it sometimes works, but what happens more often than not is that the spear fighter just takes a step backwards, brings their weapon back in line and stabs you in the stomach. Spears are very quick weapons, and somebody with any sort of proficiency can thrust, retract and thrust again to a different quarter generally faster than you can displace their weapon with a sword, step forwards and attack again.

Not with a long spear. A short spear doesn't get the big reach advantage, and a longer one is easier to beat aside and get inside the reach of.

There's a reason pikemen carried shorter swords.

And if the swordsman has a shield, he can deflect the spear with it as he steps in and attacks with his sword. If you have two hands on the spear, you have no shield to stop that attack, if you have one hand on it you'll have a harder time recovering from it being beat out of line.

Roman legionaires and Spanish rotelleros practiced this. You needed a strong, agile soldier, preferably with decent armor and a shield and big, brass balls, but it could be done.

It only gets worse if the spearfighter has guys on either side and to the rear with spears as well. You lunge, he steps back, and you are now vulnerable to four or six different people, none of whom you can immediately threaten. You either back off or get stabbed, and your intended victim steps back into line, possibly while stabbing you.

If he's in a tight formation, he doesn't step back. If he chokes up on his weapon, the butt of it entangles the second rank. If he steps back, he gets tangled up with his buddies in the second rank. In a loose formation you have individual mobility to change distance. In a phalanx/schiltron/pike square, not so much.

From my limited knowledge of the historical record, I'm also struggling to think of any cases where a dense formation of spear equipped infantry was broken in head to head combat by anything other than another dense formation of spear equipped infantry. Herodotus indicates that the Persians at Thermopylae were incapable of doing anything to the Spartan formation until after their spears, which were longer than those used by Persian infantry, had broken. All of the Roman victories over phalanxes that spring to my mind occurred only after the phalanx had lost significant cohesion during an advance over uneven terrain. The Normans only won Hastings after the Anglo-Saxons broke their own shieldwall following a feigned retreat, but previous to that they had held for nine hours under attack by one of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced combined arms deployments of the era.

The Romans successfully fought phalanxes with sword and shield armed troops. The Roman units were looser and more maneuverable, and were able to create and exploit gaps in the phalanx. If you can't advance over anything but tabletop flat terrain, you need to rethink your tactics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynoscephalae

The tactics are examined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_i...llenic_phalanx

You can break up spear formations with missiles, you can flank them.

Yes, tight units with long, pointy sticks were effective from antiquity through Waterloo, but they only work until the enemy creates and exploits a gap.

[gkathellar]

So, I'm reading some of the debates about strategy used decades or even centuries ago and I notice that people are wondering or arguing over why a strategy didn't work or did when it shouldn't or were or weren't ever used.

I have an answer that covers some of them:

Compared to modern adults, people back then knew JACK ****E.

Can't really blame them, though.

This is one of those vicious and pernicious myths that the legacies of the 18th and 19th centuries make terribly hard to get rid of. Let's just do the basics, to start with: people in the oft-reviled medieval period of Europe alone had good hygiene, fantastic knowledge of geometry, mechanical energy, architecture and optics (among other things) available to them, and relatively sophisticated crafts. You can imagine what less notorious periods were like. Human beings have come a long way in the past two centuries, but it's unfair to discredit the ages beforehand as being run by simpletons.

If you actually look at the historical record you notice just how many major battles (over the course of thousands of years) have been won through sheer brilliance, information control, and beautiful lateral thinking. Also keep in mind that in the age before information technology and everyone having reliable maps, making catastrophic mistakes was a great deal easier than it is today. This doesn't mean the participants were stupid — it means they did their best with the information available to them.

Also, try to understand that if you do something all the time, for almost your entire life, starting between the ages of six and ten, you will be good at that thing. This is the approximate relationship between many professional soldiers or warriors and the craft of war in many historical societies. These guys knew their craft, and they knew it well.

[pendell]

This is one of those vicious and pernicious myths that the legacies of the 18th and 19th centuries make terribly hard to get rid of. Let's just do the basics, to start with: people in the oft-reviled medieval period of Europe alone had good hygiene, fantastic knowledge of geometry, mechanical energy, architecture and optics (among other things) available to them, and relatively sophisticated crafts. You can imagine what less notorious periods were like. Human beings have come a long way in the past two centuries, but it's unfair to discredit the ages beforehand as being run by simpletons

Quite. The fundamental text on war was written by Sun Tzu thousands of years ago. There have also been all kinds of technics, tactical manuals, and other things from the Roman and Byzantine periods that are not nearly as well preserved but are known by specialists. The Romans built bridges and roads that are still in use, and the pyramids were built by ancient Egypt. I think it's fair to say that it's only been since about the 18th century or so that we really started to surpass the Romans technologically.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Galloglaich]

This is one of those vicious and pernicious myths that the legacies of the 18th and 19th centuries make terribly hard to get rid of. Let's just do the basics, to start with: people in the oft-reviled medieval period of Europe alone had good hygiene, fantastic knowledge of geometry, mechanical energy, architecture and optics (among other things) available to them, and relatively sophisticated crafts. You can imagine what less notorious periods were like. Human beings have come a long way in the past two centuries, but it's unfair to discredit the ages beforehand as being run by simpletons.

If you actually look at the historical record you notice just how many major battles (over the course of thousands of years) have been won through sheer brilliance, information control, and beautiful lateral thinking. Also keep in mind that in the age before information technology and everyone having reliable maps, making catastrophic mistakes was a great deal easier than it is today. This doesn't mean the participants were stupid — it means they did their best with the information available to them.

Also, try to understand that if you do something all the time, for almost your entire life, starting between the ages of six and ten, you will be good at that thing. This is the approximate relationship between many professional soldiers or warriors and the craft of war in many historical societies. These guys knew their craft, and they knew it well.

QFT, very well said.

G.

[Hawkfrost000]

So, I'm reading some of the debates about strategy used decades or even centuries ago and I notice that people are wondering or arguing over why a strategy didn't work or did when it shouldn't or were or weren't ever used.

I have an answer that covers some of them:

Compared to modern adults, people back then knew JACK ****E.

Can't really blame them, though.

Why do you say that?

most of what we know today even the most basic assumptions in our lives, like the world being round, are based on experiments and calculations done by people who lived hundreds of years ago.

In addition how many adults today could even command a unit of soldiers much less oversee an entire battle? How many could grasp the logistics involved? How many could make a suit of full plate armour? How many could fight in hand to hand, with swords and with lances by the time they were 12? How many of them could deduce the laws of motion from first principles, or conclude that the earth is round merely from looking at the evidence given by shadows cast at noon?

Not very many

DM

[TechnoScrabble]

This is one of those vicious and pernicious myths that the legacies of the 18th and 19th centuries make terribly hard to get rid of. Let's just do the basics, to start with: people in the oft-reviled medieval period of Europe alone had good hygiene, fantastic knowledge of geometry, mechanical energy, architecture and optics (among other things) available to them, and relatively sophisticated crafts. You can imagine what less notorious periods were like. Human beings have come a long way in the past two centuries, but it's unfair to discredit the ages beforehand as being run by simpletons.

If you actually look at the historical record you notice just how many major battles (over the course of thousands of years) have been won through sheer brilliance, information control, and beautiful lateral thinking. Also keep in mind that in the age before information technology and everyone having reliable maps, making catastrophic mistakes was a great deal easier than it is today. This doesn't mean the participants were stupid — it means they did their best with the information available to them.

Also, try to understand that if you do something all the time, for almost your entire life, starting between the ages of six and ten, you will be good at that thing. This is the approximate relationship between many professional soldiers or warriors and the craft of war in many historical societies. These guys knew their craft, and they knew it well.

Oh yeah, they were geniuses. Just not as smart as today's geniuses. Also, not all geniuses are omnidisciplinary geniuses. Pretty sure I spelled that wrong.

And I wasn't saying they were dumb so much as 'they didn't think to do this or that like we do'.

[Raum]

And I wasn't saying they were dumb so much as 'they didn't think to do this or that like we do'.

I'd suggest they were 'smarter' (in some ways of measuring) than the average adult today. They simply had challenges we don't see.

Communications is a big one. Command and Control today is simple compared to Civil War or Roman Empire. Imagine commanding a battle when communications are exchanged at foot speed or, at best, signal flags & bugle calls. Imagine planning the battle on maps when distances were measured in cubits and map borders had some form of "Here be Monsters". Imagine the logistics of war when few are literate and you can't store food for any significant length of time.

I think we underestimate the challenges our ancestors met and overcame.

[huttj509]

Another thing is "the oldest trick in the book" scenarios are often old and well known because they were used, and worked. I mean, what will happen in the next 50 years that we would never have expected? I dunno, but in 100 years they'll be saying it was obvious.

"No, we didn't think anyone would actually march ELEPHANTS over the MOUNTAINS! That's not an easy path, and it'd be INSANE!"

"Sir, we found a dead officer who drifted ashore and he had plans for an attack, we have them now!" *attack comes from a completely different direction as the corpse, officer history, and plans were all planted to draw off the defense*

[fusilier]

Historically, we have problems with many sources. During certain historical periods flattery and hyperbole were very common. Exaggerating the enemy's numbers, increasing casualties, recasting the story so that it parallels classical myths, etc. were techniques that could be used in "retelling" the event. The opposite could be done as well; Machiavelli is notorious for severely underreporting casualties, and recasting what were hard fought battles as bloodless affairs.

We know this because sometimes more detailed accounts, closer to the source have survived -- but the chroniclers' stories are the ones that became widespread, distorting our view of history.

Even nowadays, enemy casualties can be over-reported (unintentionally), during WW1 (and I suspect WW2), casualties might be purposely under-reported (or difficult to gather and categorize). Perception biases can come into play, and even the general course of a battle may be reported differently by different sides.

Air combat is particularly bad. I typically won't trust an account of an air battle unless it's verified by someone on the opposite side.

I read this webpage whenever I need to remind myself of how unreliable a one-sided account may be. It is a long article about the Italian air corps serving during the Battle of Britain (and the months following). It includes a description of a large air battle between Italian Biplanes and Hawker Hurricanes. It's amazing the details that are reported, but when compared with the accounts from the other side, simply could not have happened. I don't think there was any intentional embellishment, or exaggeration -- I think it's just part of how humans observe events in very stressful situations.

http://surfcity.kund.dalnet.se/falco_bob.htm

So when dealing with historical events we have several problems. When faced with something that doesn't make too much sense, or seems very unlikely, my initial response is to give the source the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time, trying to keep a degree of skepticism. It's possible that whoever wrote embellished or exaggerated intentionally (or quoted from a source that did so). It's also possible that the writer wasn't familiar with the subject and didn't communicate it well, because he didn't understand it himself. There's potentially some bias present as well. However, on the other hand it may be difficult to understand, because we don't live in those times -- we don't have the daily issues, the same background, the same kind of education (not level, kind), that our ancient ancestors had. We lack some knowledge that they assumed everybody knew. Also, we may not "think" as they did, which can make it hard to understand what is trying to be communicated.

[Roxxy]

I've been working on a Pathfinder campaign setting where guns have completely replaced armor and shunned swords into a secondary role. These guns are fairly advanced, and roughly comparable to an M1 Garand in capability (Automatic weapons exist, but they are massive. There are heavy machine guns, but no sub-machine guns.). These guns have a good amount of wooden furniture. Now for the question.

What woods would this wooden furniture normally be made of? How would California coast redwood fare if used as rifle furniture? I bring this up because I am from California, and have been bringing some California elements into an area of the setting. I thought it would be cool if this area had an elite military unit that, as a badge of the honor of belonging to the unit, was issued rifles made out of the area's finest redwood instead of the rifles issued to common soldiers, what with redwood trees being highly iconic to the area. The question is, does using redwood for rifle furniture make a poor rifle?

[Straybow]

It doesn't matter much. A few kinds of wood are too weak or light to make a lasting rifle stock. Other than that it just depends on how much money one wishes to spend. And then there is simple prestige. There are $100k Purdeys in burled walnut, and there are $1k Winchesters in burled walnut. I'd be hard pressed to say the Purdey is 100 times as good as the Winchester, but you certainly wouldn't equip anybody but an elite with one.

[gkathellar]

"No, we didn't think anyone would actually march ELEPHANTS over the MOUNTAINS! That's not an easy path, and it'd be INSANE!"

"Okay, that lunatic and his elephants aren't stopping us again. Everyone: attach trumpet companies to your columns. We'll use the loud noise to herd the elephants between our columns and right off the battlefield, and circle the cavalry around to flank them while they think they've got us on the run."

Scipio gets way too little credit. The elephant-herding thing alone ...

What woods would this wooden furniture normally be made of?

Live-oak might be too heavy, but IIRC per-pound it's as strong as steel.

[Storm Bringer]

I've been working on a Pathfinder campaign setting where guns have completely replaced armor and shunned swords into a secondary role. These guns are fairly advanced, and roughly comparable to an M1 Garand in capability (Automatic weapons exist, but they are massive. There are heavy machine guns, but no sub-machine guns.). These guns have a good amount of wooden furniture. Now for the question.

What woods would this wooden furniture normally be made of? How would California coast redwood fare if used as rifle furniture? I bring this up because I am from California, and have been bringing some California elements into an area of the setting. I thought it would be cool if this area had an elite military unit that, as a badge of the honor of belonging to the unit, was issued rifles made out of the area's finest redwood instead of the rifles issued to common soldiers, what with redwood trees being highly iconic to the area. The question is, does using redwood for rifle furniture make a poor rifle?

I must point out that being able to make a self loading rilfe requires a an equally complex action to a automatic rifle (technically, it's exactly the same, apart form the hammer not being released automatically at the end of the cycle). Historically, they made man portable LMGs before they made semi-auto rifles (1918 era BAR or Lewis gun vs 1940 era Garand or G43).

but to answer the question, no, redwoods would make a fine stock wood.

[Mike_G]

I must point out that being able to make a self loading rilfe requires a an equally complex action to a automatic rifle (technically, it's exactly the same, apart form the hammer not being released automatically at the end of the cycle). Historically, they made man portable LMGs before they made semi-auto rifles (1918 era BAR or Lewis gun vs 1940 era Garand or G43).

but to answer the question, no, redwoods would make a fine stock wood.

Yes, technically.

But, military doctrine can drive design. Medium or heavy machine guns for defending a position might be part of military doctrine, like artillery, which is how the first machine guns were used. Gatlings, maxims, and so on.

But maybe the army doesn't want to have the average infantryman carrying an automatic weapon, for supply purposes. The idea of conserving ammo kept the US army with breech loaders long after reliable magazine rifles were available.

So, maybe they encouraged semi automatic rifles, but not light machine guns, or submachineguns.

It can work with a little creative storytelling.

[No brains]

"Okay, that lunatic and his elephants aren't stopping us again. Everyone: attach trumpet companies to your columns. We'll use the loud noise to herd the elephants between our columns and right off the battlefield, and circle the cavalry around to flank them while they think they've got us on the run."

Scipio gets way too little credit. The elephant-herding thing alone ...

I thought the predominant strategy for dealing with elephants was to run flaming pigs at them to make them flip out.

[Roxxy]

Yes, technically.

But, military doctrine can drive design. Medium or heavy machine guns for defending a position might be part of military doctrine, like artillery, which is how the first machine guns were used. Gatlings, maxims, and so on.

But maybe the army doesn't want to have the average infantryman carrying an automatic weapon, for supply purposes. The idea of conserving ammo kept the US army with breech loaders long after reliable magazine rifles were available.

So, maybe they encouraged semi automatic rifles, but not light machine guns, or submachineguns.

It can work with a little creative storytelling.

I'm using the explanation that problems with weight, overheating, and ammunition capacity with hand held autos just haven't been solved yet, and technology has advanced along slightly different avenues than the real world, meaning that the same cooling tech that was around IRL hasn't quite been figured out.

[Hawkfrost000]

new thread time?

DM

[Yora]

Well into page 50 again. Time for a new thread once more.

Yes, I think so.

[fusilier]

I must point out that being able to make a self loading rilfe requires a an equally complex action to a automatic rifle (technically, it's exactly the same, apart form the hammer not being released automatically at the end of the cycle). Historically, they made man portable LMGs before they made semi-auto rifles (1918 era BAR or Lewis gun vs 1940 era Garand or G43).

Not exactly. Heavy machine guns certainly predate semi-auto rifles, but the first semi-auto's developed around the same time as the first light machine guns. The Mondragon rifle was introduced in 1908. France had actually adopted a semi-automatic 7mm rifle just prior to WW1 as a standard infantry arm! The outbreak of war cancelled those plans (not enough time to retool factories quickly for both ammo and rifle production), but they eventually introduced the RSC semi-auto in 1917 as a support weapon.

On the other hand, many of these rifles could, and were, used in full auto. A small magazine capacity typically prevents overheating, although overheating is often a problem with all machine guns and can be addressed with proper training. A weapon intended as a semi-automatic rifle, however, would probably be too light to use as a full-automatic, i.e. the recoil would be too difficult to control.

[Thiel]

The Royal Danish Navy introduced the Madsen-Rasmussen M1896 semi automatic rifle in 1896, ten years before they got the Madsen LMG.

[Morithias]

This is going to sound a tiny bit non-d&d but...

Given the level of armor and weapon technology in the 3rd edition D&D books, (full plates, seige engines, etc). At the current time of the most advance non-variant weapons and armor technology. How advanced in real life would gunpowder and musket technology be.

For example, at the time of the creation and mass production of the full plate in europe, how advanced could a blacksmith using the same level of production technology create a mundane musket.

Basically can I justify my 24 intelligence artificer mass producing muskets for my kingdom's soldiers, without having to have her first invent a time machine.

[endoperez]

Basically can I justify my 24 intelligence artificer mass producing muskets for my kingdom's soldiers, without having to have her first invent a time machine.

Gothic plate existed in the 15th Century. The arquebus existed in the 15th Century. Plate armour co-existed with firearms, and was tested (proofed) against bullets.

However, firearms don't exist in most D&D settings, so the point is moot. If the necessary knowledge doesn't exist, the fact that the necessary tools and skills exist is moot.

You can always ask your DM. Muskets change the warfield quite a lot, but perhaps he'd allow hand cannons, perhaps adapted to throwing alchemical substances over longer ranges.

[GraaEminense]

If the necessary knowledge doesn't exist, the fact that the necessary tools and skills exist is moot.

Repeated for emphasis. And I'll add: If the necessary motivation doesn't exist, having the rest doesn't help much.

Technological breakthroughs are usually the result of more than just the ability to do something. For some reason seeing the potential (positive or negative) in what you have before you has proven exceedingly difficult without the benefit of hindsight -or a time machine.

The Greeks and Romans knew of the steam engine concept, but never used it.
The Incas knew of the wheel, and did the same.
Evidence points to our ancestors taking quite some time before they found out that the horse could be used for something more than a milkless, weaker cow.
Once they did, the stirrup needed to make horsemen into knights took ages to appear despite being a very simple design.

Just because the technology to do something exists does not make it obvious that it can be done. Even today, with us being more open to bold new solutions than ever, why-didn't-I-think-of-that ways to do things still crop up constantly, making me wonder what else we have missed.

So, regarding the D&D muskets... as GM, I wouldn't allow it unless most of the concepts were already known in the setting, despite the technology level. Soldiers to whom the concept of gunpowder is alien would make awful arquebusiers, and early gunpowder is volatile and fragile stuff in the hands of laymen.

Bombs, however, eventually followed by grenades and maybe Chinese-style rocket-powered spears could be possible on a limited scale if an alchemist was able to crack the secret of gunpowder and someone ambitious and brainy was around to use it.

[Morithias]

I see...then perhaps I will have to talk to him then. Shouldn't be too hard, the video game the campaign is based off of had them.

[GraaEminense]

If they exist in the setting, equipping troops with hand cannons or arquebuses should be possible. Mass production to equip whole armies, however, require specialized industry on a level unlikely in a late medieval/early renaissance society. Especially since gunpowder is difficult to produce and keep in quantity.