Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[fusilier]

Cuir Boulli

Last year I needed to stiffen some leather to make a visor for a shako. I did a bunch of research online and found many references to Cuir Boulli, which was actually quite annoying because they primarily sent me down the wrong path. What I finally did was get a piece of vegetable (not oil) tanned rawhide, soak it in water, then let it dry out under some heavy books. Worked perfectly. Cooking it in the oven just burned it, and caused it to warp. Although the warping may have been fixed if I had used some kind of form.

Anyway, many people seem to use wax to harden leather. I don't know why. When I got some boots from Italy for reenacting, the seller instructed me to always "wax them". Now something may have been lost in translation, but I assumed the wax he was referring to was something like a mink oil (which despite it's name is a waxy substance), or something that the English call "dubbin". The point was to protect and water-proof the boots, not to harden them. This would fit with the other waxed leather products that Ashtagon pointed out.

I have a friend who has made reproduction "Ardagas", leather shields that the Spanish adopted from the Moors. One of his is even in a museum. I can double check, but I'm pretty sure that the outside is rawhide that has been soaked and stretched over a frame, making it very hard.

I've also seen pictures of hardened leather helmets, and breastplates, but I can't remember the details. It's possible that hardened leather may have been a bit more widespread, but little of it has survived.

[Beleriphon]

Cuir Boulli

Last year I needed to stiffen some leather to make a visor for a shako. I did a bunch of research online and found many references to Cuir Boulli, which was actually quite annoying because they primarily sent me down the wrong path. What I finally did was get a piece of vegetable (not oil) tanned rawhide, soak it in water, then let it dry out under some heavy books. Worked perfectly. Cooking it in the oven just burned it, and caused it to warp. Although the warping may have been fixed if I had used some kind of form.

You can use water but you do need some manner of form otherwise, as you noted, the leather warps. You really should be using at least some kind of form no matter what, even if its just some books to make it flat.

Anyway, many people seem to use wax to harden leather. I don't know why. When I got some boots from Italy for reenacting, the seller instructed me to always "wax them". Now something may have been lost in translation, but I assumed the wax he was referring to was something like a mink oil (which despite it's name is a waxy substance), or something that the English call "dubbin". The point was to protect and water-proof the boots, not to harden them. This would fit with the other waxed leather products that Ashtagon pointed out.

Using wax to harden leather is similar to the water method, except you use melted wax and kind of "paint" it onto hot leather. This can be extremely dangerous mind you so please be careful is you manage to get enough wax and want to give it a go.

I have a friend who has made reproduction "Ardagas", leather shields that the Spanish adopted from the Moors. One of his is even in a museum. I can double check, but I'm pretty sure that the outside is rawhide that has been soaked and stretched over a frame, making it very hard.

You'll want to take a look at this guy then: http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/Clonbrin_shield.htm

Its a reproduction of what is believed to be a 3000 year old solid leather shield from Ireland. It doesn't appear to have a frame, the reproduction was used in a series of tests with reproduction weapons (made by the same fellow) for an archaeological study.

Also this has some good tips on the process of making cuir boulli:
http://www.personal.utulsa.edu/~marc...eather/hl.html

[eulmanis12]

Question about black powder weapons.

How accurate was a flintlock musket? Specificly, what are my odds of hitting a target at 10 yards?
What about 20?
30?

[Kaeso]

My question is probably a classic, but I'll ask it anyway.
A friend of mine is pretty fascinated by Asian culture and claims that Asians have always been more advanced than Europeans. One thing she often claims is that the samurai and ancient chinese warriors were in every way superior to contemporary European knights. I'm pretty sceptical but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. Could some of you please provide me with an objective comparison between knights, samurai and the ancient warriors of China (both in terms of equipment, training and effectiveness on the battlefield) and provide me with an answer on the age old question "Knights or Samurai"?

[Spiryt]

Question about black powder weapons.

How accurate was a flintlock musket? Specificly, what are my odds of hitting a target at 10 yards?
What about 20?
30?

That really depends on what 'target' is and then on musket and shooter familiarity and skill with it....

So it's impossible to give one answer, but at such small distance like 20 yards, hitting human target with decent musket and decently loaded powder charge, ball etc. shouldn't be difficult at all.

[Mike_G]

Cuir Boulli


Anyway, many people seem to use wax to harden leather. I don't know why. When I got some boots from Italy for reenacting, the seller instructed me to always "wax them". Now something may have been lost in translation, but I assumed the wax he was referring to was something like a mink oil (which despite it's name is a waxy substance), or something that the English call "dubbin". The point was to protect and water-proof the boots, not to harden them.

Beeswax does a really good job of waterproofing boots. Put the boots in a 200 degree oven or let the sit on the hearth near a fire, then rub the beeswax on the warmed leather. It sinks in and protects very well. Doesn't harden the leather, but it darkens it and makes it shiny.

And keeps your feet dry, which is the whole point of the exercise.

[Maclav]

Beeswax does a really good job of waterproofing boots. Put the boots in a 200 degree oven or let the sit on the hearth near a fire, then rub the beeswax on the warmed leather. It sinks in and protects very well. Doesn't harden the leather, but it darkens it and makes it shiny.

And keeps your feet dry, which is the whole point of the exercise.

Unless your boots are made of veg-tan leather, in which case they will become rock hard. I made a leather bottle last year with beeswax. It is hard like a rock. I can stand on it - hell, I think I could drive over it with my van.

[Spiryt]

Could some of you please provide me with an objective comparison between knights, samurai and the ancient warriors of China (both in terms of equipment, training and effectiveness on the battlefield) and provide me with an answer on the age old question "Knights or Samurai"?

The problem with discussing with guys like your friend that it's hard to really seriously do something like that - comparison like that assumes some kind of Age of Empires or whatever 'warriors', "units" or whatever, which is obviously not the case in real world.

Actual people 'effectiveness' on the battlefield would depend on all them political, economical, cultural etc. situation, aside from the fact that "effectiveness on battlefield" is also very broad problem.

Long story short though, when 'less advanced' Europeans arrived to Japan, Japanese people very quickly and eagerly started to purchase/copy their military designs, like breastplates and muskets.

[Kaeso]

The problem with discussing with guys like your friend that it's hard to really seriously do something like that - comparison like that assumes some kind of Age of Empires or whatever 'warriors', "units" or whatever, which is obviously not the case in real world.

Actual people 'effectiveness' on the battlefield would depend on all them political, economical, cultural etc. situation, aside from the fact that "effectiveness on battlefield" is also very broad problem.

Long story short though, when 'less advanced' Europeans arrived to Japan, Japanese people very quickly and eagerly started to purchase/copy their military designs, like breastplates and muskets.

That is true, but it is quite possible to compare the effectiveness of their armor (how good it is at deflecting/catching blows), weapons (which blades were of better quality) and intensity of their training (it's obvious that Spetznaz recruits are far heavier trained than the average US infantryman), isn't it?

[Spiryt]

That is true, but it is quite possible to compare the effectiveness of their armor (how good it is at deflecting/catching blows), weapons (which blades were of better quality) and intensity of their training (it's obvious that Spetznaz recruits are far heavier trained than the average US infantryman), isn't it?

Talking about, say, 1000 - 1450 period, there's no such thing as "their armor" weapons, or universal 'training'. Medieval Europe and Japan were universalistic, but not to such degree.

Spetznaz can run around forest surviving with a knife and 3 matches, but US special forces can do similar stuff. Comparing special forces member to common infantryman is obviously invalid.

So there will be plenty of dirrerent blades and weapons, differing in design, purpose and sheer quality of craftsmanship, like almost everywhere everytime.

Even if katanas were roughly 'universal', Japanese complicated lammellar/scale laced armors were extremely varied.

Generally, one certain thing is that Japan was very isolated, compared to European countries, or Europe as a whole.

So everything was relatively 'static' and comparison/competition of military culture in different situations was not possible.

[Kaeso]

Talking about, say, 1000 - 1450 period, there's no such thing as "their armor" weapons, or universal 'training'. Medieval Europe and Japan were universalistic, but not to such degree.

Spetznaz can run around forest surviving with a knife and 3 matches, but US special forces can do similar stuff. Comparing special forces member to common infantryman is obviously invalid.

So there will be plenty of dirrerent blades and weapons, differing in design, purpose and sheer quality of craftsmanship, like almost everywhere everytime.

Even if katanas were roughly 'universal', Japanese complicated lammellar/scale laced armors were extremely varied.

Generally, one certain thing is that Japan was very isolated, compared to European countries, or Europe as a whole.

So everything was relatively 'static' and comparison/competition of military culture in different situations was not possible.

Point in case. If we choose to limit ourselves to a single period within that time frame (let's say 12th century, at around the time of the crusades), would your answer be any different? This would mean we'd compare a templar or a hospitaler knight to a 12th century samurai.

[Spiryt]

Point in case. If we choose to limit ourselves to a single period within that time frame (let's say 12th century, at around the time of the crusades), would your answer be any different? This would mean we'd compare a templar or a hospitaler knight to a 12th century samurai.

Well, Hospitalers and Templars, as military orders had their statutes etc. and at least during Crusades, they were involved in conflicts on a very large scale.

So they were in general somehow 'militarized' folk, so I guess they can indeed serve as pretty good 'sample'.

Creating some 'average samurai' sample would be bigger problem, at least to me.

Still both would be pretty much heavy, 'elite' cavalry in 'typical' field situation.

The difference would be that knights would typically be actually 'heavy' shock cavalry, charging with lances, while samurai would hold horse archery in great reverence.

Difference might have been partially caused by the fact, that AFAIU, Japanese medieval horses were pretty damn small beasties, compared to what Europeans were accustomed to, let alone modern horses.

[Yora]

Does anyone have information on the active troop strengths in Europe during the final months of World War II?

Also, I ocasionally read about treating both World Wars and the Cold War as a single continous conflict (or even including the Napoleonic Wars), but I just can't find any reference to it again. Any idea under what name this construct or hypothesis would be found?

[Storm Bringer]

Question about black powder weapons.

How accurate was a flintlock musket? Specificly, what are my odds of hitting a target at 10 yards?
What about 20?
30?

in "battlefield" conditions, anybody getting hit by musket fire at 100 yards or more was considered sheer blind luck.

however, a single, "sniper" shot might well be able to reach out that far, given careful loading and some skill. I know a rifleman shot a french general at 300+ yards, but that was with a rifle.

[Spiryt]

Does anyone have information on the active troop strengths in Europe during the final months of World War II?

Also, I ocasionally read about treating both World Wars and the Cold War as a single continous conflict (or even including the Napoleonic Wars), but I just can't find any reference to it again. Any idea under what name this construct or hypothesis would be found?

That's makes quite a lot of sense, although you would have to define 'conflict'.

After WWII ended, literally millions of Russian and Allies soldiers were stationed in Germany and Eastern Europe, while powers where involved in struggle for control over those territories.

Sadly, Soviet Union generally had taken control over pretty much everything east of Berlin, and Austria wasn't that far away from becoming another socialistic satellite state either. AFAIR, partially due large amount of stationed american soldiers, communist weren't able to fully commit to murders of opposition, propaganda, falsification of the elections etc.

[Yora]

In many parts of the world the conflict still isn't over. With Germany and Japan two major players were mostly out of the game and the Soviets and Nato didn't actually start shoting at each other on a large scale. But war in Afghanistan never ended afer the Soviet retreat, there are still occasional skirmishes in Korea, and the Chinese civil still is not completely figured out with the whole Taiwan thing. Chechnya would probably also count.

[eulmanis12]

To clarify my earlier question about muskets.

I know that at 100 yards I will not hit anything, and that a 20 yards I will have a good chance of hitting a man sized target, What I'm trying to figure out is what a good approximation of those chances are.

Say at 30 yards, will I have a 50/50 chance of hitting a target, a 1/4 chance of hitting etc?

I'm working on a game that takes place in the 1800's and I'm trying to determine the what die rolls I should assign at different ranges.

[Mathis]

To clarify my earlier question about muskets.

I know that at 100 yards I will not hit anything, and that a 20 yards I will have a good chance of hitting a man sized target, What I'm trying to figure out is what a good approximation of those chances are.

Say at 30 yards, will I have a 50/50 chance of hitting a target, a 1/4 chance of hitting etc?

I'm working on a game that takes place in the 1800's and I'm trying to determine the what die rolls I should assign at different ranges.

I have no historical knowledge about the period, but if you are talking about a game system then I suggest this. You mentioned 1/4 chance of hitting. I don't know what system you are dealing with, but this is a good way of solving your problem: 1-25 feet is easy. 26-50 is medium. 51-75 is hard. 76-100 is very hard. Shouldn't be too hard converting that into your game system. Game rules are supposed to be simple, the more realism you add to them the more complex they usually get, and muddle up the gameplay.

[Spiryt]

To clarify my earlier question about muskets.

I know that at 100 yards I will not hit anything, and that a 20 yards I will have a good chance of hitting a man sized target, What I'm trying to figure out is what a good approximation of those chances are.

Say at 30 yards, will I have a 50/50 chance of hitting a target, a 1/4 chance of hitting etc?

I'm working on a game that takes place in the 1800's and I'm trying to determine the what die rolls I should assign at different ranges.

This really depends on skills of shooter, precision his musket, familiarity with it, etc.

At the beginning of 19th century, with decently loaded musket, hitting stuff at 100 yards would certainly be very possible.

Depends on how much time/self control shooter has to properly load the musket with powder, fit the right sized ball tightly in the barrel, then aim properly...

So accuracy would vary quite a bit - there's quite a lot of videos, even on Youtube in the Internet, to give the idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trgZmM9fNS0

[Knaight]

A friend of mine is pretty fascinated by Asian culture and claims that Asians have always been more advanced than Europeans. One thing she often claims is that the samurai and ancient chinese warriors were in every way superior to contemporary European knights. I'm pretty sceptical but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. Could some of you please provide me with an objective comparison between knights, samurai and the ancient warriors of China (both in terms of equipment, training and effectiveness on the battlefield) and provide me with an answer on the age old question "Knights or Samurai"?

This is a very long time period, and during parts of it neither Japan nor China were anywhere near unified. With that said, "warriors" is a very broad category, and levies of minimally trained troops were common in China (an inevitable result of geography that can support incredibly large populations), and given that many knights were highly trained they would be better. Japan had a similar system, as did much of Europe, and any claim of general "warriors" from one of those places being better than top troops from the other two can basically be dismissed out of hand.

In any case, looking at individual warriors is misplaced. What made the various Chinese forces dangerous tended to be the completely ridiculous army sizes, which could be supported due to the sheer quantity of farm land, mines, so on and so forth.

As for general advancement, it depends on what is being looked at. Technologically, Europe caught up and surpassed both China and Japan, but it wasn't until the 1500s or so for China, looking at urbanized areas in both. As regards governance, China has had a near-modern semi-beaurocratic system on and off since the Qin Legalist Reforms, circa 240 CE, which could be called "more advanced" than feudalism. Japan really lagged behind China for the most part, only to be developed rapidly in the 1800s onwards*.

*Having huge amounts of opium pumped into a country by foreign merchants really isn't good for development. Or much of anything, for that matter.

[Yora]

Two times two words: "Meiji Restauration" and "Opium Wars".

Yes, for the 10,000 years of human history, there was as much progress, invention, and innovation in Asia as there was in Europe. Probably even more, given that it's much larger area with much more people, and for long stretches of time, Europe was really quite backward.
But there just can't be any denial about the massive advances of the industrial revolution. Regardless of how the scales were tipped before that period, the industrial revolution catapulted Europe ahead temendously. And the two most important countries where it took place were also the ones with the gigantic colonies and there just wasn't anything the people of Asia could do about it. (Germany was also important, but as with pretty much everything, we were late to the party and entered the stage while the whole show was already running.) Japan manged to hop on on the train and look what they did to the entire region? They just conquered everything they could reach.
Now in the 21st century, it's shifting again, as many asian countries are catching up on the know how and admitedly that's about the only thing Europe really had for it. We don't have lots of resources and compared to China, India, and Indonesia we're tiny. So unless the EU unifies, Europe will probably be a backwater again in 100 years or so.

[Joran]

This really depends on skills of shooter, precision his musket, familiarity with it, etc.

At the beginning of 19th century, with decently loaded musket, hitting stuff at 100 yards would certainly be very possible.

Depends on how much time/self control shooter has to properly load the musket with powder, fit the right sized ball tightly in the barrel, then aim properly...

So accuracy would vary quite a bit - there's quite a lot of videos, even on Youtube in the Internet, to give the idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trgZmM9fNS0

Yup, lots of variables here. According to A Devil of a Whipping, a modern person managed to hit a man-sized target at 80 yards with 5 out of 6 shots in a minute without using the ramrod. I think he held the bullets in his mouth and spit them down the barrel. So it is possible to get decently good accuracy out of the musket.

However, infantry tactics dictated that accuracy was not much of a concern, considering that the soldiers lined up into very large blocks. In that case, you'd more likely just fire into the big block of humanity opposing you than to try to aim your shot at a particular person. To aid this, smooth bore muskets were frequently loaded with buck and ball (1 large musket ball and three smaller .30 caliber balls) so that the musket was more like a mini-shotgun than a rifle.

I won't vouch for the accuracy of this web page, but I found this and it might be helpful:

http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonis..._tactics_2.htm

[mcv]

The Samurai versus Knight debate is impossible to settle. Some people truly believe that everything from Japan is imbued with some kind of magic (which gets worst when talking about ninja), which isn't all that odd, since the Japanese themselves are much more mythical and magical about their fighting. But that's really all there is to it. It's a pervasive superstition, but there's no real inherent superiority. (Other than the fact that for thousands of years China really was the most advanced nation in the world. But let's focus on Japan.)

That is true, but it is quite possible to compare the effectiveness of their armor (how good it is at deflecting/catching blows), weapons (which blades were of better quality) and intensity of their training (it's obvious that Spetznaz recruits are far heavier trained than the average US infantryman), isn't it?

In some ways it's comparing apples and oranges, in others there's no real difference. Samurai and knights were both professional warrior classes. Likely their training was of a similar level. The old belief that European knights were brutes bashing away with clumsy weapons is definitely false; there are plenty of highly detailed and very advanced fighting manuals (as discussed earlier in this thread). There's no reason to assume that knights who took their trade seriously were not among the best trained warrior in the world (together with samurai and similar classes in other cultures).

As for weapons and armour, there are some significant differences between Europe and Japan. In Europe, high quality iron was quite plentiful. In Japan, it was rare. The famous technique for making katanas by folding the iron lots of times was not unknown in Europe, but it was largely unnecessary. Good quality European swords were more common and cheaper than in Japan, simply because of the better iron. And at some point almost everybody had a sword, whereas in Japan they have always remained the weapons of the elite, as far as I'm aware. And the same thing goes for armour. When you've got lots of good iron, using lots of metal in armour is definitely an option. And so is putting common soldiers in heavy armour.

And the abundance of heavy armour, means that in Europe, weapons had to be designed with armour in mind. Swords got bigger and bigger, and eventually people had to use maces and polearms, because swords just aren't that good at punching through steel. By contrast, in Japan, the lack of armour and the mysticism and tradition surrounding the katana kept it the dominant weapon of the samurai for much longer. Which is why Japanese swordfighting has an uninterrupted tradition, while Europe doesn't.

The two most obvious differences between katanas and European swords are curved versus straight, and single edged versus double edged. Of course being curved pretty much means it has to be single edged. But Japan wasn't the only culture with curved swords: Arab scimitars are also curved. And they too tend to wear less armour than Europeans. And when firearms made steel armour obsolete in Europe, suddenly the saber replaced the sword as the blade of choice. So my theory is that curved swords are superior against lightly or unarmoured opponents, whereas straight swords are better against heavier armour. Curved swords definitely are better at slicing (which is useless against steel armour), while straight swords are good at cutting and thrusting.
Being straight and double edged also means there are a lot of attacks you can make with a European sword that would be completely alien to a samurai.

So which is better? They're both best for the situation they were developed for. Neither Japanese nor Europeans were idiots. They built the tools they needed for the job, and they worked with what they had.

[Jay R]

My question is probably a classic, but I'll ask it anyway.
A friend of mine is pretty fascinated by Asian culture and claims that Asians have always been more advanced than Europeans. One thing she often claims is that the samurai and ancient chinese warriors were in every way superior to contemporary European knights. I'm pretty sceptical but I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. Could some of you please provide me with an objective comparison between knights, samurai and the ancient warriors of China (both in terms of equipment, training and effectiveness on the battlefield) and provide me with an answer on the age old question "Knights or Samurai"?

You're not making the assertion; it's not your job to provide the documentation. Ask her to provide documentation for her position.

If she recognizes that as a reasonable request and provides documentation, judge it by reading through it and seeing what actual tests or evidence it provides. Printed guesses are still just guesses; are there any metallurgical studies, citations of period battles, etc.?

If she won't provide citations for you to evaluate, give up. She is not thinking rationally on the subject and will not listen to anything you say.

[Spiryt]

And the abundance of heavy armour, means that in Europe, weapons had to be designed with armour in mind. Swords got bigger and bigger, and eventually people had to use maces and polearms, because swords just aren't that good at punching through steel. By contrast, in Japan, the lack of armour and the mysticism and tradition surrounding the katana kept it the dominant weapon of the samurai for much longer. Which is why Japanese swordfighting has an uninterrupted tradition, while Europe doesn't.

I certainly wouldn't be willing to simplify it like this. Japan had a lot of armor, as well, even if it was different, and archery was often a way to 'defeat' it - very heavy arrows fired from short distance, to have a chance to ram trough the scales etc.

The perseverance of Japan swordsmanship is probably result of somehow random cultural and social occurrings, and it haven't really preserved in really 'clean' state.

The two most obvious differences between katanas and European swords are curved versus straight, and single edged versus double edged. Of course being curved pretty much means it has to be single edged. But Japan wasn't the only culture with curved swords: Arab scimitars are also curved. And they too tend to wear less armour than Europeans. And when firearms made steel armour obsolete in Europe, suddenly the saber replaced the sword as the blade of choice. So my theory is that curved swords are superior against lightly or unarmoured opponents, whereas straight swords are better against heavier armour. Curved swords definitely are better at slicing (which is useless against steel armour), while straight swords are good at cutting and thrusting

Scimitars are generally post medieval 'invention' - Arab swords were also generally straight, curved sabers were brought by the expansion of Turkish/Ottoman people in Islamic world.

Saracens also didn't really tend to wear less armor.... In fact most medieval depictions of rather heavy stuff like lammellar or scale comes from mameluks and faris - so pretty much Islamic heavy cavalry.

[Straybow]

Does anyone have information on the active troop strengths in Europe during the final months of World War II?

Also, I ocasionally read about treating both World Wars and the Cold War as a single continous conflict (or even including the Napoleonic Wars), but I just can't find any reference to it again. Any idea under what name this construct or hypothesis would be found?

Well, in this thread, that was my response to a historical survey that lumped "Mongol conquests" from 1200 to 1450 as one conflict. I compared that to lumping in everything from Napoleon on as "European conquests." The exchange is about 1/3rd of the way into this thread.

Off the top of my head, I recall that the peak of WW2 the US fielded 61 divisions in Europe, or about 1.6 million pairs of boots on the ground. The WW2 troop figures should be wikiable.

[Joran]

For the bow people out there:

What are modern bow and crossbow strings made of? Also, is getting them wet as damaging as it was back in ye olden days?

Thanks.

[Straybow]

Modern bowstrings are synthetic, dunno what it preferred.

In the old days bowstrings were gut, which would become soft and ruined when wet.

[Beleriphon]

For the bow people out there:

What are modern bow and crossbow strings made of? Also, is getting them wet as damaging as it was back in ye olden days?

Thanks.

Modern ones? Usually some kind of high tensile polymer compound like Dacron, or even Kevlar (which barely stretches and thus tends to fail spectacularly all of sudden). Current high level competition uses a polymer called Fastflight S4.

Dacron seems to be most common for the typical shooter, since it has good stretch and is more "forgiving" on wooden bows than other string types.

[Joran]

Modern ones? Usually some kind of high tensile polymer compound like Dacron, or even Kevlar (which barely stretches and thus tends to fail spectacularly all of sudden). Current high level competition uses a polymer called Fastflight S4.

Dacron seems to be most common for the typical shooter, since it has good stretch and is more "forgiving" on wooden bows than other string types.

Thank you kindly. Do they have performance problems if they get wet? Could you shoot a bow out in the rain?