Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Spiryt]

From my terrible Deutsche sprechen, I could conclude that main goal of the program seems to be educating masses brainwashed by pop culture - that Japanese swords don't cut trough other swords and street lights - and that's alright, but still it's very sketchy.

[Yora]

The makers of this show won't care, though. They just want something cool to show on TV.

It's a 25 minute daily science show that fills the spot between the afternoon shows and the evening movies with a random topic.

[Galloglaich]

I think the video is actually fairly realistic as those things go. It's been around for a while. Both of those guys doing the demos are HEMA practitioners, and one of them is also a JSA practitioner. One of the two guys doing the demos of the longsword is Colin Richards, an Englishman who lives in Germany who does know his stuff. He runs the international open longsword and rapier competition that they do in Germany every two years.

The sword cutting sword thing was to debunk a myth that Katanas could do this.

The whole show was a bit nationalistic in it's bent but factually pretty well grounded, in the sense that everything they said and showed was pretty accurate, including the differences between the two types of blades, though they do lean a little bit toward the longsword side it's mainly a matter of emphasis, certainly no worse (actualy not nearly as bad) as dozens of videos which lean the other way and are much more poorly researched. The blades they used in the demo were pretty authentic replicas.

An important thing to note is, that the katana was apparently much more used outside of warfare against unarmored opponents, similar to a rapier. When samurai went to war, the primary weapons were spears and bows. Compact size and leightweight construction was an important factor, long-term durability not so much.
On the other hand, longswords were weapons meant for war. Comparing the two would be a bit like comparing a revolver with a rifle.

This isn't really accurate. Both longswords and katanas were sidearms used both on the battlefield and in civilian circumstances, mainly by experts. Neither one was ever a primary battlefield weapon. The main weapon of European infantry were polearms or missile weapons (bows crossbows or guns) same for Japanese; the main weapon for cavalry was a lance or missile weapon... both for European and Japanese cavalry.



There is a slightly heavier version of the Katana, called the Tachi, which was used more often on the battlefield, but most people couldn't tell the difference (this is a tachi) and there was overlap between the two types and Katanas were also used as battlefield sidearms.



There were also lighter (and more complex-hilted) civilian versions of the longsword as well, like this one above.

Katanas and Longswords were both used a lot in medium intensity urban conflicts against unarmored opponents, as well as against armored opponents on the battlefield.

The real differences are that the Katana is

A1) shorter / less reach
A2) single-edged
A3) has less hand protection

but also
B1) has a harder blade
B2) curved for better slicing
B3) very quick close-in

G

[Galloglaich]

What kind of weapons would be used in medieval dueling? Both street and upper class duels.

edit: Were there any western swordsmiths that were held in particularly high regard we still know of?

There were some very famous ones early in the Medieval period, during the Viking Age. For example there was a guy (or maybe a family) called Ulfberht, probably a Frank but maybe a Scandinavian, who was making really superb swords out of wootz steel (what people call 'Damascus steel') billets from India. He etched his name into the forte of his swords. His swords were of extraordinary quality, and very popular with Vikings, and found in Viking contexts, they were so good that they were apparently copied widely and there were a lot of fake Ulfberfht swords being made back in the day

In the early Medieval period swords were enormously valuable, wootz steel swords much more so.

During the period 700 - 1200 AD, Norse and Frankish swords were in high demand by the Arabs and Central Asians, and as far away as China. They were a major export item on the Silk road, from Europe.

Later there were still famous swordsmiths, but I think more locally famous, by the late Medieval period the price of iron and steel had gone done dramatically, the technology of making swords was widespread.

As with so many Medieval industries, certain towns became famous for making swords. Toledo in Spain had a reputation for very good swords in the period roughly 1300 - 1600 AD, though it gradually faded as the industry came under Royal control and the independence of the guilds was suppressed. They still made swords after that, all the way until the 1930s, but they were increasingly fancy looking crap. Solingen in Germany became arguably the most important center of high quality blade production in Central Europe by the late Medieval (1350 - 1550) period, and they still have a strong reputation for good blades there today. Swordmaking there goes way back, Ulfberht himself may have lived in Solingen. They also still have strong independent guilds in Germany.

I suspect though that there were still individually famous swordsmiths around, in spite of how cheap most European swords were in the Middle Ages (about one third to half a mark or 80 -120 silver pennies is an average cost) there were still very fancy ones made, but I unfortunately don't know about any individual sword masters*. I'd like to learn more about that actually.

G

* though we do know that there was a link between sword or knife makers Guilds and the fencing Masters, for example the famous fencing Master Joachim Meyer was a member of the messerschmidts, or knifemakers guild.

[Joran]

I was watching American Guns where the hosts were demonstrating a revolver that accept both the .410 shotgun round and .45 Colt cartridge. One example is the Taurus Judge.

When would someone ever want to use the .410 shotgun round rather than the standard .45 cartridge?

[Raum]

When would someone ever want to use the .410 shotgun round rather than the standard .45 cartridge?

Home defense. Don't have to worry (too much) about shot going through a wall into a bedroom...or a neighbor's house. Shot is also (usually) less deadly to humans than a slug though it often does more flesh damage. That may be a factor for some.

Other uses (snake rounds (shot), possibly other vermin) are possible but may have more optimal options.

[Galloglaich]

Easier to hit too

[Matthew]

The tachi is generally longer than the katana, though the technical distinguishing factor is supposed to be the way it is hung. Still, many tachi were "cut down" in later periods to serve as katana, which may have made them better foot weapons. I understand that there was a tendency for higher ranking samurai to continue carrying tachi and tanto over katana and wakizashi.

[Theodoric]

Easier to hit too

Not really. It's a bit of a hype at the moment.

[Autolykos]

When would someone ever want to use the .410 shotgun round rather than the standard .45 cartridge?

Wouldn't shot run into a lot of problems with rifling (either destroying it or flying off wildly after leaving the barrel)?

[Matthew]

A year or more ago I was on about fully armoured knights shooting bows or crossbows, and mentioned a manuscript illumination showing a most unlikely event in action. I stumbled on the image I was thinking of today, though you guys might like it:

[Straybow]

Hmmm, one guy in mail, the other wearing scale. Not full plate harness...

Where is it from, what is it depicting?

[fusilier]

Wouldn't shot run into a lot of problems with rifling (either destroying it or flying off wildly after leaving the barrel)?

I've *heard* that firing shot out of a rifled weapon results in a poor spread (I think it tends to be tighter, but also somewhat erratic). But I'm not sure now if that's true, or been verified. Cannister shot certainly didn't work with rifled cannon.

--EDIT-- some research on the internet would suggest the opposite. The shot will fling out and form a donut pattern, with a very extreme spread.

[Joran]

I've *heard* that firing shot out of a rifled weapon results in a poor spread (I think it tends to be tighter, but also somewhat erratic). But I'm not sure now if that's true, or been verified. Cannister shot certainly didn't work with rifled cannon.

--EDIT-- some research on the internet would suggest the opposite. The shot will fling out and form a donut pattern, with a very extreme spread.

Yup, the Box o' Truth found firing shot out of a rifled barrel led to a much wider spread. They didn't mention damage to the rifling though.

http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot43.htm

Edit - Box o' Truth apparently did some tests with the Judge. Apparently, some shotgun shells have a plastic cup holding the shot so they don't contact the rifling.

http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot41.htm
http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot53.htm

[fusilier]

I don't see how lead shot could damage the rifling in the first place. The barrel is designed to take a tight fitting lead, or jacketed bullet (in which case the jacket would be harder than lead) at much greater pressures, scraping against the rifling. Maybe iron shot could be damaging, but I would hope that they use a soft iron, and still the pressures would be lower, wouldn't they?

If the shot is "bouncing around" inside the barrel with enough force to damage rifling, wouldn't it also be capable of damaging the walls of a smoothbore barrel? (I assume that rifle and smoothbore barrels are made of metals with similar hardness and density)

[Autolykos]

Yup, the Box o' Truth found firing shot out of a rifled barrel led to a much wider spread. They didn't mention damage to the rifling though.

http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot43.htm

Ah, nice, that's pretty much the information I was looking for.

[Matthew]

Hmmm, one guy in mail, the other wearing scale. Not full plate harness...

Sure, since we were not specifically talking about full plate harness at the time that is indeed the case. The particular discussion point was whether knights truly disparaged ranged weapons or whether they in fact used them. I was making the case for knights using missile weapons frequently and without recrimination, mostly at sieges. Richard I and Philip Augustus are well known examples at the siege of Acre, but less prominent knights are also praised for their archery from time to time. Indeed, today I just read Ambroise praising the Count of Ferres, "who put more than hundred Turks on their biers, for he was such a good archer that there was none better from here to Duens." Anyway, I mentioned that I had seen a manuscript illumination where the knights were shooting and wearing great helmets, but could not recall where exactly.

Where is it from, what is it depicting?

Good question. Unfortunately the Dragonsfoot member who posted it, "The Ice Maiden", has dropped off the face of the internet; as I recall, she worked at a museum in Scotland, you can see her original post here.


New Question!

Which is more realistic, a six second round or a one minute round? I always thought that it was pretty well accepted that a six second round made more sense than a one minute round, but I recently encountered somebody who feels the opposite is true. Obviously, rounds of a fixed period are not ever likely to realistically and precisely model combat, but I guess what I am asking is whether mêlée should be measured in minutes or seconds (technically tenths of minutes, I guess)?

[Storm Bringer]

I must disagree, a six second round seems about right for me, considering what you can do in it :

Spar with maybe one or two potential chances to hit

Load, aim and Fire a bow at a short ranged target, or load a heavy crossbow.

cast a quick spell

and so on.

[Autolykos]

Which is more realistic, a six second round or a one minute round? I always thought that it was pretty well accepted that a six second round made more sense than a one minute round, but I recently encountered somebody who feels the opposite is true. Obviously, rounds of a fixed period are not ever likely to realistically and precisely model combat, but I guess what I am asking is whether mêlée should be measured in minutes or seconds (technically tenths of minutes, I guess).

I actually prefer the one second rounds in GURPS (which allow a lot less actions to compensate) or the three second rounds in Shadowrun (which allow multiple initiative passes with about the same amount of actions as a D&D round each for fast characters), because doing multiple different things in six seconds (or, heck, a whole minute) of combat is pretty much expected, and covering all possible combinations would create a darned complex system.
You can chalk this up to abstraction when talking about one-on-one melee, but once firearms come in, six second rounds are silly. That's more than enough time to fire a whole magazine, reload, and fire another one (not very well aimed, granted).

[Knaight]

Which is more realistic, a six second round or a one minute round? I always thought that it was pretty well accepted that a six second round made more sense than a one minute round, but I recently encountered somebody who feels the opposite is true. Obviously, rounds of a fixed period are not ever likely to realistically and precisely model combat, but I guess what I am asking is whether mêlée should be measured in minutes or seconds (technically tenths of minutes, I guess).

Based on my skirmish practice (duels and full battles obviously require different levels of granularity), I'd go with a six second round. That's about long enough to pull off most maneuvering and at least enter combat or start chasing an archer around*. The situation can certainly change, but it isn't likely to be dramatic.

In a minute, everything is completely different. Everyone is likely in a dramatically different position**, having taken odd routes to get there. A great many people have been taken out. It might well be over. A minute is simply too long at the skirmish level.

With that said, a minute makes perfect sense if you're instead looking at pitched battles with tens of thousands of troops on each side. Six seconds is extremely long for a dueling situation (odds are good somebody is down within six seconds). So it really depends on what's being modeled.

*Running can be remarkably productive for archers, if they have someone they can head towards with proper melee equipment.

**This applies less if the battlefield in question is a gate, bridge, or similar.

[Galloglaich]

A minute can be a looooong time in a sword fight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4N3sk2x6uM

G

[J.Gellert]

Now that running was mentioned - how do you guys (those that would know) feel about D&D's (3.5) armor speed penalties? Too harsh, too lenient, or about right?

[Matthew]

Now that running was mentioned - how do you guys (those that would know) feel about D&D's (3.5) armor speed penalties? Too harsh, too lenient, or about right?

Okay, I guess. My understanding is that armour does not really reduce speed directly in terms of limiting mobility, but the weight will tell, and fatigue will eventually considerably reduce the ability to move quickly. D20/3E abstracts this out to overall movement, which seems pretty reasonable.

[Brother Oni]

Okay, I guess. My understanding is that armour does not really reduce speed directly in terms of limiting mobility, but the weight will tell, and fatigue will eventually considerably reduce the ability to move quickly.

In my experience, armour effects depends on the shoes they're wearing and what surface they're fighting on.

Smooth sole shoes, such as what the Normans wore, doesn't affect your straight line speed on grass, but you'd better hope you don't have to stop or change direction suddenly.
Mud or any surface offering some grip shows no real difference, although your comments on fatigue (especially on sunny days) are apt.

If their shoes have some proper grip, then I don't see any issues with mobility.

[Fortinbras]

What are shotgun slugs designed for shooting? As part of the online component of the hunter's ed course I'm taking I had to study a chart which showed various types of ammo and the game they were suitable for. I noticed that slugs were conspicuously absent from the chart. To me they seem to combine the worst aspects of bullets and pellets and I cannot see using them on anything.

On an unrelated note, can anybody recommend so good books (nonfiction or well researched fiction) by or about Gurkhas.

Thank you

[Brother Oni]

What are shotgun slugs designed for shooting?

A quick wikipedia check says they're used for hunting large game where rifles aren't permitted.

Military and police use seems to be immobilising vehicles and defeating body armour or cover such as car doors. I think they'd do a pretty good number on door locks/hinges and the like as well, although over penetration at close range would probably be an issue if civilians/non-combatants are a concern.

[Mike_G]

Slugs have a shorter range and less penetration than a rifle round, so they're better for hunting deer or similar animals in areas where a rifle shot might travel far past or even through the target and endanger somebody.

Shot is good for small, fast animals like birds or squirrels. It doesn't take much damage to kill them, but the spread helps to hit. Buckshot--which is usually 9 larger pellets-- has a bit more power and can take down deer (or people without body armor) at close range, and the scatter means that a quick shot on the fly might hit with some pellets where a single round might miss. A .30 cal pellet makes a nasty wound.

Rifles are accurate over much longer range, and penetrate much better, but need to be aimed more precisely. This makes them good for long range shooting, or penetrating body armor or cover. But it also means that a miss will travel very far, and a hit will go through the target, so it's not a good idea to use a rifle in an area where you care about stuff beyond the target

Slugs are a middle ground between rifle bullets and shot shells. They aren't best at either role, but aren't worst either. And they allow a shotgun to be a multi purpose weapon, which can shoot different sizes of shot or a solid slug.

[Joran]

I think they'd do a pretty good number on door locks/hinges and the like as well, although over penetration at close range would probably be an issue if civilians/non-combatants are a concern.

Quick Internet search reveals that there are purpose built shells for breaching, that are essentially metal powder bound with wax or plastic. Once they destroy the hinges or locks, the round should dissipate and pose no threat to the people behind the door.

Here's the Box o'Truth about using it as an antipersonnel/home defense round...
http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot25.htm

[Brother Oni]

Quick Internet search reveals that there are purpose built shells for breaching, that are essentially metal powder bound with wax or plastic. Once they destroy the hinges or locks, the round should dissipate and pose no threat to the people behind the door.

Here's the Box o'Truth about using it as an antipersonnel/home defense round...
http://theboxotruth.com/docs/bot25.htm

Oh, I'm fully aware that there are specialised rounds for door breaching, but I was just commenting that slug rounds would double quite nicely for door breaching in a pinch.

Incidentally, the Box o'Truth recommends against using those breaching rounds for home defence due to their penetration (10 layers of dry wall or the equivalent of 6 inches of flesh at 15ft), so it's doubtful they'd dissipate with no threat to people on the other side after going through a door.

[Spiryt]

Now that running was mentioned - how do you guys (those that would know) feel about D&D's (3.5) armor speed penalties? Too harsh, too lenient, or about right?

Well, in the first place, speeds in 3.5 are extremely simple, so hard to really judge speed penalties.

1rst level 'Barbarian' with Run feat shouldn't be able to cover 90 meters in like 12 seconds wearing scale and a lot of other junk, but then again, he shouldn't be able to cover 120 in such time wearing "only" a robe, axe, and stuff.