Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Ashtagon]

Back in middle school I watched a video about the crusades which states that European knights wore thick felt pads over their armor which made them virtually immune to arrow fire as the arrows would simply stick in the felt, however during the crusades the knights had to abandon this tactic because it was simply too hot in the middle east to wear both armor and felt, and thus they were at a big disadvantage to Muslim archers.

I have never heard anything about these felt pads since. Was this a real thing?

Sounds like someone with too much imagination. The only traditional cloth that protects against arrows is silk, and that's because it has a tight weave that allows the arrow to draw the cloth with it instead of piercing it.

Felt isn't a woven material, so there;'s no way it could have that property.

[Knaight]

Sounds like someone with too much imagination. The only traditional cloth that protects against arrows is silk, and that's because it has a tight weave that allows the arrow to draw the cloth with it instead of piercing it.

Felt isn't a woven material, so there;'s no way it could have that property.

Felt works fairly well against arrows, precisely because it isn't a woven material. Woven materials tend to fare poorly, as the weave comes apart under the arrow - silk does well precisely because it has a very tight weave and doesn't do this as easily. Felt, however, is pounded, and there isn't a weave to come apart at all, so it just needs to be cut through.

I seem to remember this coming up in one of these threads - probably earlier in this or the last one. In any case, that felt can protect is fairly certain, and that it has been used also fairly certain. However, there was the detail of "over their armor" mentioned, which is where this gets much more dubious.

[Thiel]

They may have misinterpreted the padding worn under the armour. Someone is bound to have used felt for that at some point.

[Matthew]

Back in middle school I watched a video about the crusades which states that European knights wore thick felt pads over their armor which made them virtually immune to arrow fire as the arrows would simply stick in the felt, however during the crusades the knights had to abandon this tactic because it was simply too hot in the middle east to wear both armor and felt, and thus they were at a big disadvantage to Muslim archers.

I have never heard anything about these felt pads since. Was this a real thing?

It is mentioned in one Muslim source concerning the third crusade, but I am not sure how reliable "felt" is as a translation. Could be a padded surcoat or padded armour of a more usual sort worn over mail.

[Xuc Xac]

No, it was fashion that created the espada ropera instead of those big, vulgar swords of the battlefield. The social factors outweighed logic 3-400 years ago, just like millions of people bought per rocks thirty years ago. Paid Money. For ordinary rocks.

A better comparison would be civilians buying small caliber pistols for concealed carry instead of a superior battlefield weapon like an assault rifle.

[GraaEminense]

There are references to padding over mail in period texts (King's Mirror, for example) as well as in illustrations. This was presumably meant to protect against arrows, many layers of tightly-woven linen should produce enough friction that an arrow would have trouble penetrating the mail beneath. I assume felt or horse-hair (and certainly silk) would give a similar effect.

Somewhat fanciful perhaps, but the idea that the more heavily-armoured Franks lost some of their advantage because of the higher temperatures in the Middle East is hardly ridiculous.

Gambeson under surcoat and over mail as evidenced by dead guy in the lower right of the picture:

[Straybow]

A better comparison would be civilians buying small caliber pistols for concealed carry instead of a superior battlefield weapon like an assault rifle.

Well, I use Pet Rocks to illustrate absurdity. People buy stuff to have the latest thing.

A sword is for show, otherwise who would care what kind of sword it was? An ornate hilt and some nice engraving would do if they just wanted a fancy sword. No, somebody said, "My sword is cool, because it's skinny. You can never be too rich or too skinny." And everyone else said, "Who doesn't want to be rich and skinny? This is the sword for me. Now we just have to spend a few decades figuring out how to use it."

(Giacomo di Grassi is supposedly the first writer to describe the parry in 1570, which is about 40 years after the earliest texts and about 60 years after the rapier began to appear.)

[Spiryt]

No, it was fashion that created the espada ropera instead of those big, vulgar swords of the battlefield. The social factors outweighed logic 3-400 years ago, just like millions of people bought per rocks thirty years ago. Paid Money. For ordinary rocks.

?

"Espada ropera" from the very beginning wasn't really much lighter than other swords, including military. Somehow more slim blade, but also solid guard added weight.

Later, when rapiers were becoming a bit lighter, they were also developing to be really, really long for one handed swords. So in effect, rather big.

So I can't really see how other swords should be "big" in comparison to them.

Somewhat fanciful perhaps, but the idea that the more heavily-armoured Franks lost some of their advantage because of the higher temperatures in the Middle East is hardly ridiculous.

Franks wouldn't be really in any way 'more heavily armored' in the Middle East though.

'Eastern 'traditions in medieval from Byzantium to India frequently involved wearing lamellar or scale over the mail, for example.

[Hawkfrost000]

I'm fairly sure that whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon, are hardly a true test. Even the guys who battle in full armor use them. The one test of parrying a replica in a prearranged attack show it is possible, which I freely grant. But nobody is volunteering to test in unscripted sparring with replicas.

I'm also fairly sure they haven't studied Silver. Read it, yes. Studied, learned, applied, not so much (I don't think Gailloglaich is claiming that, for example). Nor would I commend 99% of what you see on youtube claiming to be Silver. As I said, the historical rapier methods are interesting and worthy of study. I'm also convinced, by everything I've tested and seen tested, that Silver was correct and his methods work.

I have fought with sword and buckler, rapier and buckler as well as single rapier (In the style of Cappo Ferro) against a longsword. I use this Del Tin cut and thrust rapier, which is a tad heavier than usual rapiers as my personal style is a composite of sidesword and rapier combat. My opponent used this Cas-Hanwei longsword.

These are real swords, could put an edge on my rapier and use it on the battlefield. Likewise with his Longsword.

Using rapier and shield i can make a variety of hard and medium binds to a longsword. With rapier alone i cannot make a hard parry on a longsword but i can still defeat a powerful cut through gathering. That is, pointing the tip of your sword at the cut and allowing it to run down the true edge to the cross-guard, as this happens i thrust at my opponent.

In fact when facing a longsword with a rapier the swordsman is forced to keep his weapon on line to defend against the rapier and as soon as he removes it to prepare for a large cut i can strike him.

DM

[Straybow]

"Espada ropera" from the very beginning wasn't really much lighter than other swords, including military. Somehow more slim blade, but also solid guard added weight.

Later, when rapiers were becoming a bit lighter, they were also developing to be really, really long for one handed swords. So in effect, rather big.

So I can't really see how other swords should be "big" in comparison to them.

True, some weren't much lighter than some military swords. That's like saying the largest jockey isn't much smaller than the shortest basketball player, therefore basketball players aren't tall and jockeys aren't small.

The point against rapier is that fashion dictated adoption, not utility. The effective use of the weapon followed the fashionable design, the design did not follow from a development in fighting method.

Obviously the smallsword did follow the refining of the method, when it was realized that the lengths had become excessive. But then smallsword often completely rebated the blade, no cutting edge, just the sharp tip. I've handled a 19th cen officer's dress sword that was basically a 28" letter opener with the last inch sharpened. This is clearly a fashion statement. Nobody (at least not Mike_G and Galloglaich) would claim that completely eliminating all possibility of slashing or cutting is an advantage in design.

[Maclav]

These are real swords, could put an edge on (...) Likewise with his Longsword.

You jest, right? Hanwei piratical hand and a half makes a poor to mediocre training sword at best and is nothing like a sharp longsword. Putting an edge and point on it would require removing so much material as to render it unrecognisable.

Not that this is a fault, trying to turn my Albion Lichy into a sharp would be a disaster too.

[Spiryt]

True, some weren't much lighter than some military swords. That's like saying the largest jockey isn't much smaller than the shortest basketball player, therefore basketball players aren't tall and jockeys aren't small.

That's not like saying it at all. In no way. Most true rapiers, before real advent of smallsword were pretty hefty swords with 'just' differently shaped blade, to serve it's purpose.

Taking a look at pretty much any antique rapiers reveals that they're 'on average' only slighlty, if at all lighter than 'typical' one hander.

http://www.palus.demon.co.uk/Sword_Stats.html


Range of 2 to 3-some pounds is completely typical.

would claim that completely eliminating all possibility of slashing or cutting is an advantage in design.

Smallswords were result of eliminating pretty much everything possible to create extremely agile and lightning quick weapon, that's also very probable, while retaining ability to harm, in this case skewering bodies with minimal pressure applied.

Result is a weapon, that wouldn't really cut or slash sensibly in any case with it's geometry, so there's no point of applying the edge.

Still, a lot of them were in fact sharpened, AFAIR.

Won't partake in discussion about superiority of Christmas over Easter, just pointing out those two things.

[Straybow]

I have fought with sword and buckler, rapier and buckler as well as single rapier (In the style of Cappo Ferro) against a longsword. I use this Del Tin cut and thrust rapier, which is a tad heavier than usual rapiers as my personal style is a composite of sidesword and rapier combat. My opponent used this Cas-Hanwei longsword.

These are real swords, could put an edge on my rapier and use it on the battlefield. Likewise with his Longsword.

Excellent! May I ask why you prefer the shorter, heavier sidesword? Perhaps because being entirely reliant on the thrust is not a tactical advantage?

Using rapier and shield i can make a variety of hard and medium binds to a longsword. With rapier alone i cannot make a hard parry on a longsword but i can still defeat a powerful cut through gathering. That is, pointing the tip of your sword at the cut and allowing it to run down the true edge to the cross-guard, as this happens i thrust at my opponent.

In fact when facing a longsword with a rapier the swordsman is forced to keep his weapon on line to defend against the rapier and as soon as he removes it to prepare for a large cut i can strike him.

DM

Yes, rapier can be effective. Your training partner isn't using Silver, which is the other point. In the English method a two-handed longsword has an advantage over single weapons and weapon with dagger or buckler. My training group was just getting into double weapons when I moved, and four years later are well into longsword (Silver, a little Swetnam, some Harley 3542).

Silver's method works as advertised. I concede that nobody in my old group does rapier AFAIK. but the main Company in England does study and practice with some very proficient rapier and smallsword fellows.

Again, I caution that nothing I've seen from other training groups (training, sparring, and tournament videos) is anything approaching Silver. They rarely fight out of a guard, they don't use stops, or true times, etc. It is hard to find a good representation of Silver out there.

[Galloglaich]

Don't forget also the Estoc / Stock / Tuck / Kanzer family of swords, which go way, way back and were used by heavy cavalry in warfare... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc

This is just a matter of specialization in the weapon. There are specialist and generalist weapons, both have their advantages. A dueling weapon is just a specialist weapon for certain social / civilian circumstances.

I'm as reluctant as Spiryt to delve into the Silver vs. Italian rapier Masters debate. I can see both sides of it. I'm pleased to see people so passionate about their particular favorite historical Master from 300 or 400 years ago that they rehash these centuries-old debates. Some of Silvers jingoism, which is being pretty well channeled here, can be a little off-putting, but maybe that is part of what made his system work for him. I think his analysis is impressive but not flawless. I don't see competition between to approaches to fencing to be a zero-sum game.

One question, Straybow, just out of curiosity, if you dismiss 99% of the Silver practitioners on youtube, do you have any youtube videos of yourself in action? Have you participated in any tournaments?

The only thing I can comment on in any rational way are the historical facts, to the extent that we are aware of them.

Cavalry did not exclusively use sabers. Sabers were a fairly late arrival in Europe, especially Western Europe. Though the dao family of sabers existed in China and Central Asia going back to the Bronze Age in various forms, the saber as such did not become ubiquitous in Central Europe, specifically Hungary, until the 15th Century, and didn't spread throughout Europe originally as the Slavic Szabla and Shashka family of weapons (or, incidentally, the Middle East in the form people call 'Scimetar' which is the Saif / Shamshir family of sabers) until the 16th Century.

The saber became very popular in Europe but it was by no means the only sword used by cavalry even that late in the game. Sabers were most popular in fact with light cavalry explicitly, the curved blade is there to assist weapon retention in making a ride-by draw-cut (same for the canted grip you see on most sabers). A slice in other words, usually done just once or twice before moving on (riding away at top speed). Heavy cavalry who were meant to duke it out by contrast typically used strait swords, even as late as the 19th Century, such as the Schiavona, the Pallasch, and the famous pattern 1796 English heavy cavalry sword (not to be confused with the English pattern 1796 saber, which was for light cavalry).

Until the 18th Century, the sword, any kind of sword, was almost always a sidearm. The Roman Gladius, the Vikings Sword, the Crusaders sword, were all sidearms. The thing is, sidearms were very very important. The Colt Revolver was just a sidearm in the American West, when it first appeared the musket was still the primary weapon.. but there is no doubt that the six gun was the critical factor in countless close-range engagements. They were sidearms, but I don't think anyone would call a Colt Dragoon an effeminate civilians toy..

If you were a fencing Master training people in a foreign country, in which a substantial number of the population resented your very presence, it would be a challenge to face all comers endlessly without eventually suffering some kind of setback, in my personal opinion. Imagine going to say, 17th Century Japan and teaching George Silvers methods. It could be a little daunting.

The sword of the robes had its military counterpart, the cut-thrust sword, which was probably only a couple ounces heavier if at all, (there was considerable overlap between the two types). I've already pointed out the military success of the Rodoleros, who excelled specifically with the sidesword.

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

I personally wouldn't discount the military prowess of the Spanish in the 16th Century, they probably had the best infantry in the world at that time. The English were no slouches either, and probably had an even better navy at that time, but the Spanish tercios were no joke, and love 'em or hate 'em, the Conquistadors were tough as nails and took over territory not just across South America and the Carribean, but as far away as the Philippines.

Finally, as strange as it may sound, rapiers, both heavy and light, short and long, and including the flimsiest looking dueling rapiers, WERE in fact used sometimes on the Battlefield. There is no survey of how well they ultimately faired, and perhaps argue into infinity.


G

[Straybow]

That's not like saying it at all. In no way. Most true rapiers, before real advent of smallsword were pretty hefty swords with 'just' differently shaped blade, to serve it's purpose.

Just comparing numbers doesn't tell the whole story. Silver's point is that the length makes the rapier slow to uncross and clumsy to use. The slimmer blade is less able to make a solid block or a solid strike. A sword should be able to make a disabling hit with ease.

When the zombie apocalypse comes, you need a weapon that can whack off a hand and split a skull. Silver knew this, of course.


(@Maclav I think when DM says "put an edge on it" it is in the figurative sense, an edged version. But I agree, the CAS Hanwei is more like a Silver short sword than a good long sword. It's only 2" too long for my perfect length. It needs another 6" and a pound of steel.)

[Straybow]

I'm as reluctant as Spiryt to delve into the Silver vs. Italian rapier Masters debate. I can see both sides of it. I'm pleased to see people so passionate about their particular favorite historical Master from 300 or 400 years ago that they rehash these centuries-old debates. Some of Silvers jingoism, which is being pretty well channeled here, can be a little off-putting, but maybe that is part of what made his system work for him. I think his analysis is impressive but not flawless. I don't see competition between to approaches to fencing to be a zero-sum game.

One question, Straybow, just out of curiosity, if you dismiss 99% of the Silver practitioners on youtube, do you have any youtube videos of yourself in action? Have you participated in any tournaments?

I can appreciate that stance. No, my friends back east have some video of demonstrations we did at Colonial reenactment gigs. We have a few videos for privileged access.

The organization discourages open access videos for several reasons. First, in the learning stages not everybody executes very well, and that isn't what we want to have put forth as examples. Second, the prevalence of folks claiming Silver's methods but doing nothing identifiably so. Last and sadly, a few disloyal students have gone off on their own teaching a half-arsed version, with which we don't want to be associated.

We are also not supposed to issue personal challenges as unprofessional conduct. I've kinda skirted the issue here, and even being as bold to argue Silver is probably skirting too close in some eyes.

We do welcome fellowship and cross-training, as it were. I will be getting together with some rapier enthusiasts because that's all I've been able to find in my area. I'll shut up and learn what I can, and I'll share some of the critical basics, some of which apply to rapier as well as any other weapon.

...Shiavona, the Pallasch, and the famous pattern 1796 English heavy cavalry sword...

I personally wouldn't discount the military prowess of the Spanish in the 16th Century, they probably had the best infantry in the world at that time. The English were no slouches either, and probably had an even better navy at that time, but the Spanish tercios were no joke, and love 'em or hate 'em, the Conquistadors were tough as nails and took over territory not just across South America and the Carribean, but as far away as the Philippines.

Yes, that's why I put a little winky face after the comment about Team Rapier.

Sure, cavalry also used backswords, but the point remains that the heavier cutting sword was paramount for the troopers who really needed swords. I'm fairly sure there is no heavy cavalry rapier. (Now watch some wiseacre fish up some goofy thing used by somebody's cavalry...) I've only personally handled a Napoleonic heavy saber, which is what sticks in my mind, naturally. But we had a practical Shiavona in our study group, which is too long by Silver and I found a bit tip-heavy. I didn't think of it as a cavalry weapon.

One could also note that in an odd irony, the British lancers were reduced, in WW1, to carrying what amounted to an 18" long edgeless smallsword instead of a real lance. Somebody in the War Department thought less is more...

[Hawkfrost000]

You jest, right? Hanwei piratical hand and a half makes a poor to mediocre training sword at best and is nothing like a sharp longsword. Putting an edge and point on it would require removing so much material as to render it unrecognisable.

Not that this is a fault, trying to turn my Albion Lichy into a sharp would be a disaster too.

Yes that was a poor choice of words, the above is true for my Del-Tin (seriously i spent like an hour dulling it to the point i could actually cut with it and feel safe about not hurting my opponent) you make a good point about the Hanwei, what i meant was that it was a real sword and not a

whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon

sorry if i was unclear.

Excellent! May I ask why you prefer the shorter, heavier sidesword? Perhaps because being entirely reliant on the thrust is not a tactical advantage?

Actually it was purely personal preference, i found my self often cutting with a rapier and trusting with a sidesword, and when sparring i found that i was slipping between styles. Both methods of attack are very useful with both weapon styles, so i made a compromise. A heavy rapier is very useful for making a cut and can do so far better than a regular rapier, but it is also about a hand shorter than a regular rapier and heavier. Those factors together mean that it has a larger Forte (or strong) and a smaller Debole (or weak), which means it has a different series of advantages and disadvantages than an "ordinary" rapier.

Yes, rapier can be effective. Your training partner isn't using Silver, which is the other point. In the English method a two-handed longsword has an advantage over single weapons and weapon with dagger or buckler. My training group was just getting into double weapons when I moved, and four years later are well into longsword (Silver, a little Swetnam, some Harley 3542).

True, nobody at my school (that i know of) has seriously studied Silver, though his ideas interest me. I have tried on several occasions to sit down and read Paradoxes of Defense but have never gotten very far.

We did a touch of Silver in a polearms course i took a while back, but that's about it.

Silver's method works as advertised. I concede that nobody in my old group does rapier AFAIK. but the main Company in England does study and practice with some very proficient rapier and smallsword fellows.

Again, I caution that nothing I've seen from other training groups (training, sparring, and tournament videos) is anything approaching Silver. They rarely fight out of a guard, they don't use stops, or true times, etc. It is hard to find a good representation of Silver out there.

I do not doubt that Silver was a very good fighter, though i do question the bias of his writings. I have no doubt that he presents a very useful style of fighting, that when used properly will often yield victory over other styles and weapons.

I do however question that the rapier is a less useful weapon compared to the longsword or the backsword simply because it is a rapier.

DM

[Maclav]

Ywhat i meant was that it was a real sword and not a

whippy metal longsword trainers, or nylon

sorry if i was unclear.

Well, to be fair.. it is a whippy metal longsword trainer. Granted, its not as whippy bad as say an I-Beam or one of those horrid nylon noddles that you can bend around covers by hitting flat...

So are the much better tinker blunts and even my much less flexible Albion is STILL a whippy/bendy thing compared to a proper, stiff sharp. Pay near the tip or with the flat still results in distorted and diluted response.

[eulmanis12]

I don't know much about Silver and so make no judgment on his work as a whole, but simply discounting the rapier because its a rapier seems illogical to me.

In (admittedly somewhat informal) training the first thing we were taught is that EVERYTHING is or can be an effective weapon if used properly. Since a rapier is designed to be lethal, dismissing it as useless when fighting an oponent armed with one is the easiest way to get yourself killed.

Never discount an opponent reguardless of what weapon they are carrying. Everything can be lethal, and reguardless of the advantages of one weapon over another, skill trumps a technological advantage.




On an unrelated note.

WW2 tanks
Which was a better tank the T34/85, the Panzer IV, or the Sherman 76?

[Galloglaich]

Probably the T-34 / 85, though they all have different strengths.

The T-34 / 85 has a much more powerful gun than the other two, better for both AP penetration and HE for against infantry and guns. I think it may have the best range of the 3 though I'm not certain of that. It has by far the best off-road performance, a lower silhouette, and probably the best armor. I'm not sure what machine guns it has but I know it has a bow gun and usually a heavy (12-14mm) MG on the pintle mount. The T-34 carries the least amount of ammunition of the 3 tanks.

The M4/76, depending on the specific model, has the highest road speed and a gyrostabilizer, meaning it can shoot on the move (if the crew knows how to use the gyro). It also is the most mechanically reliable and probably best in terms of crew comfort, and communications equipment, and a faster turret traverse. Gun is almost as good as the T-34 for AP (especially when using the special HVAP ammunition), and more accurate than the 85mm, though not as good for HE. But the M4 also has the highest silhouette (meaning easier to hit) and questionable off-road performance in some kinds of terrain. Certain models like the M4A3E8 have arguably better armor than the T-34/85, they had a roughly equal record in combat when they fought each other in the Korean war. M4's have .50 cal machine guns for the pintle mount which is good. The others are just slow firing .30s, but it carries a lot of ammo and includes guns on both the coax and bow.

The Pz IV, again depending on the specific model, is the oldest of the 3 designs, slowest, and least protected in terms of armor, but it has a comparable gun in all the later variants, and is historically most likely of the 3 to have thee most effective types of special armor-piercing ammunition (APDS or equivalent) and it probably has the most accurate gun and optics (at least when not moving) which is real important especially at longer ranges. It also probably has the lowest silhouette of the 3 which is good (making it harder to hit). Engine reliability is fair, but probably the worst of the 3. Certain later variants have special anti-personnel mortars, spaced anti-HEAT armor applique, and other advanced features lacking in the other two designs. And generally, better trained crews. Pz IV has the excellent fast-firing MG-43 series machine guns on the pintle, coax, and bow.

G

[Spiryt]

WW2 tanks
Which was a better tank the T34/85, the Panzer IV, or the Sherman 76?

With such relatively complicated thing like a tank, answer can be really complicated too...

Particularly considering huge variation in use - T34/85 was in many ways very solidly designed and up to date tank for it's time, but in practice, huge problems with factories, qualified workers, huge demand and maximally cut time of production (they were needed now) meant that a lot of them were just tragically made.

Faulty welding, gearboxes requiring hammer to use, and so on...

Then, German tanks were usually pretty much limousines compared to Soviet ones - together with very hasted production, driving and fighting in T/34 was pretty distressing experience, even compared to other tanks.

Different design principles.

And so on....

[Galloglaich]

Well, to be fair.. it is a whippy metal longsword trainer. Granted, its not as whippy bad as say an I-Beam or one of those horrid nylon noddles that you can bend around covers by hitting flat...

So are the much better tinker blunts and even my much less flexible Albion is STILL a whippy/bendy thing compared to a proper, stiff sharp. Pay near the tip or with the flat still results in distorted and diluted response.

You know some antique historical 'sharps' are quite whippy / bendy right? A lot of 'Viking' swords, quite a few Oakeshott X, XII, XIIa, XIIIa and so on...

G

[Galloglaich]

On an unrelated note.

WW2 tanks
Which was a better tank the T34/85, the Panzer IV, or the Sherman 76?

The best AFV's of those 3 powers in the War:

Su-100 ... man that is a BEAST, and the Joseph Stalin tank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-100

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

Panther of course ... the Hetzer was also really good

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

The Sherman Firefly, and the various open topped tank destroyers which actually had high kill-loss ratios (unlike the Shermans) M10, Achilles, M36, and the M18, fastest armored fighting vehicle of the war, with the best kill / loss ratio on the allied side, and barely any armor. But it was the M10 that was really the unsung hero of the allied armor forces in the difficult 1943-1944 period.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M10_Wolverine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M36_tank_destroyer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat

Anyway my $.02

G

[Thiel]

It should also be noted that while the well made T-34s were rather reliable, once something critical did break down they were extremely hard to fix, to the point were many tanks that the Germans and Western Allies would have returned to service was abandoned.

[Maclav]

You know some antique historical 'sharps' are quite whippy / bendy right? A lot of 'Viking' swords, quite a few Oakeshott X, XII, XIIa, XIIIa and so on...

G

Yes, of course the longswords which the main trainers are supposed to represent tended to be very stiff.

[Straybow]

You know some antique historical 'sharps' are quite whippy / bendy right? A lot of 'Viking' swords, quite a few Oakeshott X, XII, XIIa, XIIIa and so on...

G

I've not seen thickness and flexibility in Oakeshott descriptions... without handling samples or replicas no way to know.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

Of course, when talking tanks, one must also remember that the role of armoured vehicles in different armies varied. For example: German tank-destroyers mostly had casemate with limited-traverse guns, while American tank-destroyers mostly were turreted.

Then you have the difference between the Infantry Tank doctrine versus the Cruiser Tank doctrine, and other similar doctrines which meant that different tanks had different roles re: how closely they were working with the infantry. The wide-spread Soviet use of tank desant, for example, meant that the immediate post-war Soviet tank designs had handholds built onto them.

[Autolykos]

the Hetzer was also really good

Came in way too late though (IIRC later than the Tiger II). At that point the only advantage it had was that it was reasonably cheap to produce (compared to those over-engineered monstrosities like the Tiger series). Good from a strategic standpoint, but nothing spectacular.

[eulmanis12]

The Sherman Firefly, and the various open topped tank destroyers which actually had high kill-loss ratios (unlike the Shermans) M10, Achilles, M36, and the M18, fastest armored fighting vehicle of the war, with the best kill / loss ratio on the allied side, and barely any armor. But it was the M10 that was really the unsung hero of the allied armor forces in the difficult 1943-1944 period.

G

I didn't think the firefly was used by the americans. I thought that the firefly was a Sherman variant used exclusivly by Britain and its Empire

[Galloglaich]

I didn't think the firefly was used by the americans. I thought that the firefly was a Sherman variant used exclusivly by Britain and its Empire

Yes it was British / Imperial, I was lumping the British and the Yanks together there

G