Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Spiryt]

How much of an influence does environment have on the types of weapons used? It influences armor, of course, which changes which weapons are the most viable, but I'm interested specifically in the effects a northern Scandinavia-esque environment on weapons. Which sorts of weapons would be the most common, focusing primarily on the ability to function (ignoring logistical problems and the like, i.e. difficult to forge weapons or ones requiring special kinds of ore)?

Specifically, kama-esque weapons, would they be worth using?

It really depends on what you mean by "kama-esque"...

"northern Scandinavia" is also very vague, but if you mean Norse "Viking" people in early medieval period, then owning some actual weapons would be pretty much obvious thing for free man - much like in most of 'barbaric' Europe.

So improvisations like kama most probably wouldn't have point there.

[Telonius]

I have a question about some ancient fighting styles. Suppose you had a typical khopesh sword - curved blade, whole sword about two feet long. What sorts of movements and strikes would you use with it, during battle? Would it be mostly downward slashes, then pulling back to get another swing? Or would you try to use it to trip or direct the opponent?

Would this be any different if you were in a duel with another person wielding a khopesh?

[Spiryt]

We don't really have all that many detailed descriptions, from obvious reasons - but the principles can be generally guessed from some preserved originals.

Against some 'typical' people with spear and shield, both shield and khopesh would probably be used to try to control enemy's weapons enough to get close and start chopping with weapon that obviously has some range issues due to being significantly curved.

[Mistral]

It really depends on what you mean by "kama-esque"...

"northern Scandinavia" is also very vague, but if you mean Norse "Viking" people in early medieval period, then owning some actual weapons would be pretty much obvious thing for free man - much like in most of 'barbaric' Europe.

So improvisations like kama most probably wouldn't have point there.

Indeed. You'd have to drop Viking angle (if that was what you were going for anyways), but if you want an imperium or some centralized system of governance that would restrict the rights of commoners to maintain weapons and happens to exist in that sort of of geographical environment, any hand sickle would make a very kama-like weapon. It also depends on what you're using it for (a kama used by a classic pop-culture ninja or actual Okinawan is very different from the polearms used by armies), because for obvious reasons, some weapons are more effective than others in particular circumstances. Let's see, looking for theoretical and actual repurposed tools-turned-weapons without regard for the use to which they may be put:

• In agriculture, the flail is a threshing tool used for grains that, due to its weight, is useful as a weapon, or the blade of a hoe can be sharpened. For the classic Polish example, however, take a regular scythe, turn the blade so it follows along the handle axis rather than perpendicular to it, and you've got a war scythe, which resembles a fauchard more than anything. Sickles (like the kama) are also possible, but due to the difficulty inherent in using a blade that points back at the wielder as a weapon, are less likely to be used as improvised weapons by the common peasantry except in times of need.
• In forestry, a major economic activity in historical Scandinavia, the tang of a billhook could be fixed into the end of a staff in similar fashion to turn the combination into an improvised polearm (reference the bill, which was purpose-designed), while an axe is obvious in its fashion of use. The archetypal machete is unfortunately more commonly seen in tropical areas where the undergrowth and crops both warrant it, and even leaving aside the likely jarring effect of seeing it in this context from a verisimilitude standpoint, would be uncommon in someplace like this variant of serfdom-Scandinavia, where smaller, less threatening tools would be usable.
• As far as animal husbandry is concerned, another popular economic activity in such marginal lands as northern Scandinavia, the reason for the popular image of shepherds traditionally being tied to the shepherd's crook is not only its use in guiding the sheep, but also because a heavy blunt staff can do a lot of damage if swung with force. Similar reasons exist for the walking staff carried by solitary travelers in both historical and pop-cultural depictions. Not exactly war-worthy, but worth a mention for other uses.
• Hunters and poachers always carry their own weapons to deal with animals, whether it's a bow, spear, knife and/or other what-have-you.
• Inside of a town, blacksmiths have their hammers, which, while poorly balanced for war, are better than nothing, while coastal cities might have fishermen who may or may not use gaffs and longshoremen with hooks used to grab heavy cargo. Again, not so much war, but such stevedore hooks got a reputation in criminal activity in fiction around the 19th century.

Really, though, you can't ignore economic angles for this. If anything, civilian life is more likely to care about economic aspects than military purpose-designed weaponry. Something difficult to forge is not likely to appear in common civilian use, unless they're something very special about it that makes it more useful than other, simpler and cheaper tools.

[PersonMan]

"northern Scandinavia" is also very vague, but if you mean Norse "Viking" people in early medieval period, then owning some actual weapons would be pretty much obvious thing for free man - much like in most of 'barbaric' Europe.

So improvisations like kama most probably wouldn't have point there.

Indeed.

-Information-

I meant the meteorological climate, actually, not the socio-political climate, but the information is still good. The question was related to whether or not it could be useful against the type of armor in the region rather than how it could come into use, as the group using it is looking for something effective that won't arouse much suspicion i. e. could be something other than a weapon.

[Storm Bringer]

I meant the meteorological climate, actually, not the socio-political climate, but the information is still good. The question was related to whether or not it could be useful against the type of armor in the region rather than how it could come into use, as the group using it is looking for something effective that won't arouse much suspicion i. e. could be something other than a weapon.

well, the only tool i can think of that fits would be the humble wood axe, which has a good record agianst armour.

[Spiryt]

I meant the meteorological climate, actually, not the socio-political climate, but the information is still good. The question was related to whether or not it could be useful against the type of armor in the region rather than how it could come into use, as the group using it is looking for something effective that won't arouse much suspicion i. e. could be something other than a weapon.

That's a bit weird then, you cannot really guess 'type of armor' from meteorological climate at all, you want to specify region and time, to know material culture of the people... Of just make it up in case of fantasy setting.

Climate will obviously have influence on man thing, but, say, in 10th century CE shortish mail hauberk would be somehow 'expensive' piece of armor used by people who could afford it in Italy, Sweden, just like in England.

[Xuc Xac]

Armor isn't clothing that varies from climate to climate. In every culture in every climate on Earth, the most "common" weapon was the spear. There's only one environmental effect: if you're fighting in a closet, you use a dagger instead of a spear.

What weapons can possibly be used by a clandestine group that wants to appear unarmed will depend on the culture, not the environment. What tools can be openly carried around without arousing suspicion? A farmer could walk around with a sharpened hoe or sickle and ruin someone's day with it as long as his target isn't well armored.

Many tools can be very dangerous but they make very poor weapons. For example, a wood ax can easily remove limbs but no one is going to stand still and let you hit them with one. A battle ax is very light and fast because the bit (the sharp metal part) is as thin as a knife. A wood ax is absurdly heavy and slow for combat because trees don't dodge. A wood carver might be able to get away with a tomahawk-like hatchet or adze, but a tree-felling ax is useless for anything except surprise attacks. Maybe they could work in teams? A farmer/assassin with a hoe could trip an armored foe so a woodcutter/assassin with an ax or a miner/assassin with a pick would have an easier target.

[Traab]

I have a more modern military question. This a hypothetical scenario. Say you are trying to make an escape from a bunch of bad guys, your only weapon, a backpack full of claymore mines. These are directional explosives, (so I assume from "front towards enemy") so how close can you be behind the claymore and not be injured by them going off?

[valadil]

So this is only tangentially related to this thread, but apparently novelist Neal Stephenson is involved in HEMA and trying to build a video game engine for realistic sword based combat.

Here's the Kickstarter, with informative videos.

I'm not sure there's much to discuss, but I figured at least a few of you would be curious about this.

[Xuc Xac]

I have a more modern military question. This a hypothetical scenario. Say you are trying to make an escape from a bunch of bad guys, your only weapon, a backpack full of claymore mines. These are directional explosives, (so I assume from "front towards enemy") so how close can you be behind the claymore and not be injured by them going off?

If you're within 6m of the back, you're probably dead. If you're within 42m of the back, you're still not safe unless you're in cover.

You can see the diagram and instructions here.

[Traab]

Yikes, thats pretty bad. Had no idea that it was that indiscriminate.

[Dervag]

The problem is that it's still a blob of explosives. The front of the bomb casing is specially shaped and cut so that the explosion will smash it to bits and send the bits flying out at great speed, so they travel far and cause terrible wounds. But the same explosion also breaks up the back and sends that part flying too- just not as hard.

Shrapnel from even small explosions can easily travel dozens of yards- it's one of the big things you don't learn from Hollywood explosions.

Well, longsword and light armor generally wouldn't be generic at all for neither foot soldier, nor town guard, for the record.

Some kind of polearm would pretty much ubiquitously used in such situations.

As far as the rest of the question goes, it's really pretty hard to tell - we don't have that much sources about it, but generally as far as group fighting goes, general cooperation, predictability of your fellow combatants, and general bond would be most important - so one could fight well, knowing that other will stand too, hold formation, protect his sides etc.

So distinction like that would be sketchy at best, one could always theoretically know what to do as far as cooperation etc. goes, but in case of say, town guards who had never seen any serious trouble, it wouldn't be all that useful practically then.

Same goes for sheer fighting though, noone can really be good fighter theoretically or from some dry, light sparring.

Town guards might also be good at brawling or breaking up street fights (including ones with deadly weapons), but not good at formation fighting on the open field. Or prone to bad morale and indiscipline when kept in a military encampment and expected to follow orders like soldiers instead of like thief-takers.

[Galloglaich]

For those of us still interested in the siege of Malta, this is a great photo gallery from the Armoury of the Knights of St. John of Malta, including both European and Turkish armor and weapons, a really interesting up-close and personal look at period warfare. It looks tough. Kind of scary.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1153237...25428791610994

Photo 3 is a great example of armor vs. guns, as you can see what looks like 4 or 5 musket (?) dents



The breast plate in photo 4 looks like it has 2 dents



Photo 5 maybe has 2 dents, I can't tell if those are a design feature

There is also a shield, possibly Ottoman, with a bullet dent in it, some dented helmets and one that looks damaged, and this leg armor which looks looks like it has a bullet and / or shrapnel hole.



G

[Straybow]

I have a more modern military question. This a hypothetical scenario. Say you are trying to make an escape from a bunch of bad guys, your only weapon, a backpack full of claymore mines. These are directional explosives, (so I assume from "front towards enemy") so how close can you be behind the claymore and not be injured by them going off?

If you're within 6m of the back, you're probably dead. If you're within 42m of the back, you're still not safe unless you're in cover.

You can see the diagram and instructions here.

It says you're safe at 16m if there isn't junk that can become shrapnel within 1m of the back of the mine. I know a guy who made extensive use of them. He'd typically mount it at the base of a tree large enough to take most of the rearward blast (at least 2 feet in diameter), or a boulder, or against a berm or mound of earth, so he could be close enough to see a large portion of the kill zone when he'd set it off. He wouldn't be anywhere near 40m away, even if he didn't have a big enough backstop.

[J.Gellert]

I have another question.

The Strength Ratings for bows, from 3.5, are they a good simulation of how bows work?

Is a bow made with a specific pull, where if you are stronger you'd gain no benefit, and if you are weaker you'd get a penalty?

Also, is it impossible to get that with a "regular" longbow? Did such a thing as a "composite longbow" ever even exist?

Highlighting the parts that seem interesting.

Longbow
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. A longbow is too unwieldy to use while you are mounted. If you have a penalty for low Strength, apply it to damage rolls when you use a longbow. If you have a bonus for high Strength, you can apply it to damage rolls when you use a composite longbow (see below) but not a regular longbow.

Longbow, Composite
You need at least two hands to use a bow, regardless of its size. You can use a composite longbow while mounted. All composite bows are made with a particular strength rating (that is, each requires a minimum Strength modifier to use with proficiency). If your Strength bonus is less than the strength rating of the composite bow, you can’t effectively use it, so you take a -2 penalty on attacks with it. The default composite longbow requires a Strength modifier of +0 or higher to use with proficiency. A composite longbow can be made with a high strength rating to take advantage of an above-average Strength score; this feature allows you to add your Strength bonus to damage, up to the maximum bonus indicated for the bow. Each point of Strength bonus granted by the bow adds 100 gp to its cost.

[Autolykos]

Is a bow made with a specific pull, where if you are stronger you'd gain no benefit, and if you are weaker you'd get a penalty?

That's pretty accurate, at least for D&D standards. A bow (obviously) has a specified draw weight that is determined by thickness and materials used. If you can't pull it completely, accuracy will suffer. If you can just barely pull it, you'll start to wobble very quickly, so you can't take much aim. And once you can pull it the whole length and keep it there long enough to aim comfortably, extra strength won't help much with that bow. For more oomph, get a stronger bow.

Also, is it impossible to get that with a "regular" longbow? Did such a thing as a "composite longbow" ever even exist?

What material the bow is made from doesn't matter much in this regard. You can (technically) make any type of bow for any draw weight (regular wooden longbows range from 30 to way over 150 pounds of draw weight).
The closest thing to a composite longbow is probably this. But usually, composite bows were used to make a bow smaller.
The fact that composite bows were mostly used by horsemen and wooden longbows by footmen seems like a coincidence to me: Most parts of Western Europe are way to woody and hilly to employ horse archers, and the climate is too wet for composite bows (also, it's densely populated, and horse archers suck at sieges). Steppes are great terrain for horse archers, and they're dry enough that composite bows don't come apart.

[Telok]

Speaking of loose standards, we're all quite aware of the gross inaccuracy of D&D weights for just about anything. But I came across something that could explain that.

When it comes to weights and measures we are spoiled by modern methods of standardization and accuracy. We have had international standards and authorities to keep us all agreeing about how much mass is in a pound for so long that we forgot how things used to be.

This is a chart of the old English system of weight measurement.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nits_graph.svg

TL;DR => A london pound is 7200 grains, a tower pound is 5400 grains, and a grain is a single barley seed. So different "pounds" could be from 350 grams to 467 grams.

I don't have a decent list of real life weapons and armor weights handy, and I'm not going to look for one right now. But this could partially explain why the D&D weights for stuff is so inaccurate. (The other part is "stupid lazy writers")

[Spiryt]

I have another question.

The Strength Ratings for bows, from 3.5, are they a good simulation of how bows work?

Is a bow made with a specific pull, where if you are stronger you'd gain no benefit, and if you are weaker you'd get a penalty?

Pretty much.

Although it's actually the matter of technique in the first place, one cannot shoot well, or even draw, very heavy bow without proper skills, even if he's very strong.

Did such a thing as a "composite longbow" ever even exist?

Highlighting the parts that seem interesting.

"Longbow" meaning can vary from pretty specific design of the bow to some bows that are just "long" without any details.

You can obviously make composite longbow, it just happened that most historical bows that tend to be called 'longbow' were selfbows.

Plenty of longbows from Victorian era and today are made from laminate of few woods, often exotic - as it can cheaper way to make good heavy 'longbow' than to obtain suitably big piece of quality bow wood for selfbow.

Theoretically, 'laminate' is not quite the same, as 'composite' means combination of few materials with vastly different qualities, and woods are all in all usually at least comparable - but great amount of 'typical' steppe composite bows were being made from few different woods as well...

The fact that 'composite' in 3.5 is used as name for bows of greater strength just means that someone didn't bother to even check some dictionary.

[Matthew]

I was recently looking into this, and apparently there were some pretty big "composite" (horn and wood) bows around in China, not to overlook Odysseus' bow of course. Until then it seemed an undisputed matter that the long bows used by Samurai in Chain Mail were the inspiration for the composite long bow, but apparently they are "laminated" bows and are separated for classification. Gygax wrote an interesting article for Strategic Review on he subject as well.

[Spiryt]

I was recently looking into this, and apparently there were some pretty big "composite" (horn and wood) bows around in China, not to overlook Odysseus' bow of course. Until then it seemed an undisputed matter that the long bows used by Samurai in Chain Mail were the inspiration for the composite long bow, but apparently they are "laminated" bows and are separated for classification. Gygax wrote an interesting article for Strategic Review on he subject as well.

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/visible_bow/visible.htm

Total lenght of 6 feet makes them obviously pretty 'long' though constructionally they obviously don't have anything to do with 'round' or D cross section, gradually tapering bows with almost whole arm working - like we tend to define 'longbow' today.

So it's all really matter of convention.

[Brother Oni]

A quick question - when was the system of musket troops firing by ranks (that is, so that a unit can keep up a constant stream of fire, instead of intermittent large volleys) introduced and when was it phased out?

About the earliest reference I can find is a 1764 French manual where they covered firing by platoons and units rather than ranks, and by the late Napoleonic era (early 1800s), firing by ranks was apparently being phased out, although the British Army hung onto it for a while (the latest depiction I can find is the Battle of Rorke's Drift in 1879 in the film Zulu, but I'm going to regard the authenticity as dubious at best).

[Matthew]

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/visible_bow/visible.htm

Total length of 6 feet makes them obviously pretty 'long' though constructionally they obviously don't have anything to do with 'round' or D cross section, gradually tapering bows with almost whole arm working - like we tend to define 'longbow' today.

So it's all really matter of convention.

Indeed, Gygax's article was of considerable interest, though, he divided bows up into several categories, but I do not have it to hand. Here is a link to the thread discussing it, though: Composite Bows.

Speaking of loose standards, we're all quite aware of the gross inaccuracy of D&D weights for just about anything. But I came across something that could explain that.

When it comes to weights and measures we are spoiled by modern methods of standardization and accuracy. We have had international standards and authorities to keep us all agreeing about how much mass is in a pound for so long that we forgot how things used to be.

This is a chart of the old English system of weight measurement.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nits_graph.svg

TL;DR => A london pound is 7200 grains, a tower pound is 5400 grains, and a grain is a single barley seed. So different "pounds" could be from 350 grams to 467 grams.

I don't have a decent list of real life weapons and armor weights handy, and I'm not going to look for one right now. But this could partially explain why the D&D weights for stuff is so inaccurate. (The other part is "stupid lazy writers")

There was a fad for "medievalism" in the 19th century and a lot of very bad reproductions were produced, which is principally where all the bad information comes from. In addition many "display" items were considered to have been intended for the battlefield. Mind, weights and measures are a fascinating subject for coinage, I wrote a short article about it for my Silver Blade Adventures blog a few years back: [Article]　Yggsburgh Coinage; there is also an associated pdf dealing with ancient and medieval coinages, which has lots of nice pictures.

[Storm Bringer]

A quick question - when was the system of musket troops firing by ranks (that is, so that a unit can keep up a constant stream of fire, instead of intermittent large volleys) introduced and when was it phased out?

About the earliest reference I can find is a 1764 French manual where they covered firing by platoons and units rather than ranks, and by the late Napoleonic era (early 1800s), firing by ranks was apparently being phased out, although the British Army hung onto it for a while (the latest depiction I can find is the Battle of Rorke's Drift in 1879 in the film Zulu, but I'm going to regard the authenticity as dubious at best).

All the dates given are off the top of my head and are aproximate.

fire by rank is pretty much as old as the mass adoption of muskets. I'm pretty sure it was in use by 1600 or so. in the pike and shot era, the slow loading of the guns led to quite deep formations to allow for fire by rank, up ro ten or so ranks, but as time went on the process was sped up by improvments in techology and the lines thinned to only two ranks by the american civil war.

platoon firing was invented some time before the Seven Years War (~1750s or so), or at least was in common use in that war. "Platoon" fire ment segments of the line would volly together, with a segment being anything form a half-company to a whole battalion (Platoons as a echlon of organsation did not exist until ~WW1, as far as i know.). Volley fire only really stopped being used about the time of the boer war n 1900, when bolt action rifles had raised the rate of fire to the point that centrally controlled volleys would slow the fire down too much,

in any case, for much of the period (1700 onwards, really(), solders in contact would only manage two or three controlled volleys before they disolved into simply firing as fast as they could load.

[Spiryt]

Speaking of loose standards, we're all quite aware of the gross inaccuracy of D&D weights for just about anything. But I came across something that could explain that.

When it comes to weights and measures we are spoiled by modern methods of standardization and accuracy. We have had international standards and authorities to keep us all agreeing about how much mass is in a pound for so long that we forgot how things used to be.

This is a chart of the old English system of weight measurement.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nits_graph.svg

TL;DR => A london pound is 7200 grains, a tower pound is 5400 grains, and a grain is a single barley seed. So different "pounds" could be from 350 grams to 467 grams.

I don't have a decent list of real life weapons and armor weights handy, and I'm not going to look for one right now. But this could partially explain why the D&D weights for stuff is so inaccurate. (The other part is "stupid lazy writers")

Well, assuming that D&D pounds would be somehow smaller than modern standard English pounds, would be interesting theory, but I don't think so....


All in all creatures weights, at least few 'correct' weights, indicate 'normal' pounds.

[J.Gellert]

Awesome that it's a good simulation, and I thought as much for the "composite" part. Sweet, thanks for the answers :D Loving this topic always.

[Ashtagon]

Re coin weights

A UK £1 coin weighs 9.5 grams (0.335 oz, or 48 to the lb).

A US quarter (25 c) weighs 5.67 grams (0.2 oz, or 80 to the lb).

A one euro coin weighs 7.5 grams (0.265 oz, or 60 to the lb)

The heaviest UK coin minted in the last 20 years is a £5 coin (generally minted to mark special events only). It weighs 28.28 g (1 oz, or 16 to the lb).

50 D&D coins to the lb seems quite a reasonable figure (9.071 grams, or 0.32 oz).

[hamishspence]

The biggest issue with D&D coins is the size. In The PHB it shows a fairly large coin as the standard. A gold coin that size (given its high density) would be extremely thin- and there tends to be an exchange mechanism (in Forgotten Realms in particular) that assumes the coins are pure- so 50 gold coins are equivalent to a 1 lb gold bar.

In the GP per cubic foot thread, we find that Draconomicon assumes coins are 1/10 of an inch thick- which would require them to be massively alloyed to avoid the issue of being way too light for their size.

[Ashtagon]

The biggest issue with D&D coins is the size. In The PHB it shows a fairly large coin as the standard. A gold coin that size (given its high density) would be extremely thin- and there tends to be an exchange mechanism (in Forgotten Realms in particular) that assumes the coins are pure- so 50 gold coins are equivalent to a 1 lb gold bar.

http://www.pomian.demon.co.uk/weights.htm

Historically, gold coins were 23 3/4 carat purity (99.9%), and "sterling" silver was 92.5% (although some standards were dropped in various times and places). These are close enough to 100% for game purposes.

I think we can safely assume the gold coins in question are magnified versions.

Gold density is 19.3; silver is 10.49. Assuming a 12.7 mm (1/2 inch) diameter, a gold coin is 3.7 mm thick, and a silver coin is 6.8 mm thick.

Silver coins must logically be bigger in diameter than that.

[hamishspence]

I think we can safely assume the gold coins in question are magnified versions.

Draconomicon does say that a "typical coin" of any metal is slightly more than 1 inch wide, and 1/10 of an inch thick.

I'd probably revise one or both of those.