Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Joran]

Same, same for people. And people aren't 100% failsafe either. If you can get the drones good enough, that's still a win.

In a war against a rival superpower, I think autonomous robots with authorization to kill will be developed, especially if the communication systems aren't reliable.

In today's military, I can see development going into it, but short of actually letting a machine decide to fire. It's easier legally for the chain of responsibility if a human is behind the decision.

[Yukitsu]

@Fusilier: That's completely correct (except for the tiny bit with energy and torque, which I'll explain later). 3750 J = 895 cal, by the way. Or roughly 20 sextillion electron Volts.
It's just not the point I was fighting over. Maybe I explained it badly (English is not my native language). The important point was that you can't insert quantities (like the mass of a projectile, or a specific value like 50 grams) in a formula containing only units (like his 1J=1kg*m²/s²), since there are no quantities in that formula to replace. The reason I was getting so upset about it is that this misconception is quite common among pupils and a huge hindrance in understanding physics. I didn't want to let that go uncommented.

This is probably an English thing then, as I commented as such myself well before you got involved here. I simply pointed out in addition, that I don't care as the only tangible difference is a constant of 1/2.

[GM.Casper]

How much does nuclear power plants aboard submarines and carriers usually weight?

[Brother Oni]

How much does nuclear power plants aboard submarines and carriers usually weight?

Given that's probably highly classified information, it's going to be tricky to get exact numbers on current reactors.

This page has some numbers on older reactors and they range from ~300 tons up to ~2750 tons.

[Conners]

If you had large subterranean cultures... how would weapons have developed to deal with this? I can imagine re-directing rivers in early periods to wash away underground dwellers, and sapping of buildings/forts from the underground. Later, surface people might be able to pump toxic gas into the tunnels below?

Any other interesting thoughts on what this situation would present?

[GraaEminense]

If you had large subterranean cultures... how would weapons have developed to deal with this? I can imagine re-directing rivers in early periods to wash away underground dwellers, and sapping of buildings/forts from the underground. Later, surface people might be able to pump toxic gas into the tunnels below?

Any other interesting thoughts on what this situation would present?

A lot depends on the subterranean culture. Are they just people underground, or something fantastic? Unless they have super-tunnelling-skills their impact would be limited I'd think.

Quick thoughts:

Defensive structures would have to be built on rock, as it is harder to tunnel through.

Landmasses separated from the troglodytes by deep waters would be prized, if they were hostile.

Warfare would take on more aspects of traditional sieges: mining and countermining, collapsing tunnels and walls, using gas or smoke to chase away or kill underground enemies. Listening posts to detect digging (the Chinese used drums dug into the ground, I know).

Close combat and personal armour would likely stay relevant for longer, as underground combat would be at short distances.

[Dead_Jester]

If you had large subterranean cultures... how would weapons have developed to deal with this? I can imagine re-directing rivers in early periods to wash away underground dwellers, and sapping of buildings/forts from the underground. Later, surface people might be able to pump toxic gas into the tunnels below?

Any other interesting thoughts on what this situation would present?

If in a volcanic area, weakening some areas to favor the creation of lava flows and geysers is also an option.

As far as weaponry itself, you would probably see a preponderance of very heavy armor, but mostly only in the front (you can't really maneuver to flank while underground, and combat should mostly be linear). Phalanx tactics with big infantry blocks at major entrances and exits, and smaller ones in the caves themselves. Most pre-industrial combat would degenerate into extremely bloody melee if fought underground, and I could see the surface dwellers trying to limit underground combat as much as possible.

Pre-gunpowder, ranged weapons would be relatively rare in the underground, but effective for the outsiders at the exits (although the undergrounders would probably have even heavier armor, so their effectiveness may be lessened). Heavier, direct fire weaponry, such as ballistae and, later, cannons, would be very effective in the relatively straight and confining environment. Machineguns would also be useful in the natural chokepoints created by tunnels, as well as area denial with mines. Flamethrowers are also an option, although they may cause oxygen problems for everyone involved (although the heavy use of gas weaponry and the inevitably extremely dusty environment in tunnel warfare should lead to an almost universal use of gas masks).

Cavalry and vehicles would be rare if not nonexistent because of the roughness of the terrain and the lack of maneuvering space, although specially designed armored vehicles could be quite deadly (maybe armored and weaponized tunnel boring machines, or things resembling super-heavy tank hunters with additional frontal armor and front facing anti-infantry weapons).

[GraaEminense]

Phalangists would be very situational in underground combat. A pike or even a long spear is problematic to lug around in closed spaces, and a weapon that can't turn around a tunnel corner isn't very useful except in large caves or as a set defensive position.

In natural cave systems and ones dug by any pre-modern society, shields, hammers and maces (to counter heavy armour) would likely dominate. Grenades and short-range missile weapons (and certainly flame throwers) if technologically feasible.

In all honesty though, I'd expect this kind of warfare to consist of smoke, gas, flooding and cave-ins more than personal combat.

[Spiryt]

Like mentioned, huge underground systems where even medium scale battles/skirmishes can be fought are mostly fantasy invention - so it's hard to really visualize it.

Still, phalanxes and all kinds of other firm polearm formations could very well be potent indeed - as long as cave is of somehow bigger proportion.

Absolute impossibility in flanking such formation would make it great defensively.

But their offensive use would be very limited - hard to advance in tight order on cave ground, where ceiling and walls are completely irregular as well.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Were swords ever used as a primary mass combat weapon?

If they were, how did the tactics of such armies differ from those that primarily used pikes/spears?

[Tarinaky]

Were swords ever used as a primary mass combat weapon?

If they were, how did the tactics of such armies differ from those that primarily used pikes/spears?

There's the Doppelschneider?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppels%C3%B6ldner

[Spiryt]

Were swords ever used as a primary mass combat weapon?

If they were, how did the tactics of such armies differ from those that primarily used pikes/spears?

Romans legions trough good part of it's history are probably only really save answer here - pilum, or perhaps some other weapons as well were important part of their warfare, but swords were primary means of close combat.

In their case, it was obviously about getting really close, grapplelike and personal, compared to any formation using polearms to strike from some distance.

During the 16th century, many armies had employed somehow similar idea of sword and board troops that were getting close behind their shields and engaging enemy formation with swords.

Troops with two handed sword in Landsknecht regiments were on the other hand different in working, as large two handed swords is not close quarters weapon in any way.

Those were obviously used by rather small part of armies, not majority of infantry.

Most of other 'sword' armies I can think of weren't really nearly 'standardized' enough to talk about swords being main weapon.

[Sidmen]

I have a quick question that came up last session. Tis' about warships and fighter craft.

The game was set in the Mass Effect universe and the party just boarded a Cruiser and set off the alarms.

Now, the question is: Assuming an intruder has been spotted - do ships lock their interior doors?

And the second question: To Jet fighters have keys/keycodes/locks of any kind?

[Fortinbras]

Romans legions trough good part of it's history are probably only really save answer here - pilum, or perhaps some other weapons as well were important part of their warfare, but swords were primary means of close combat.

In their case, it was obviously about getting really close, grapplelike and personal, compared to any formation using polearms to strike from some distance.

During the 16th century, many armies had employed somehow similar idea of sword and board troops that were getting close behind their shields and engaging enemy formation with swords.

Troops with two handed sword in Landsknecht regiments were on the other hand different in working, as large two handed swords is not close quarters weapon in any way.

Those were obviously used by rather small part of armies, not majority of infantry.

Most of other 'sword' armies I can think of weren't really nearly 'standardized' enough to talk about swords being main weapon.

What was the role of two-handed swordsmen on the Medieval battlefield. Longswords and the like seem to have been fairly popular and were sometimes known as "war-swords" but it seems like they would be pretty well outclassed by pole-arms. What did the "double-men" bring to pike/halberd formations that warranted such high status and pay?

[Bhu]

do any of these have official d20 stats:

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

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

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/perkgun/index.html

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flintlo...anism#Gunlocks

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

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

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categor...ery_ammunition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fougasse_%28weapon%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_%28submersible%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coach_%28carriage%29

[Dienekes]

What was the role of two-handed swordsmen on the Medieval battlefield. Longswords and the like seem to have been fairly popular and were sometimes known as "war-swords" but it seems like they would be pretty well outclassed by pole-arms. What did the "double-men" bring to pike/halberd formations that warranted such high status and pay?

While they're effectiveness is in some dispute, they got double pay because they had possibly the most dangerous job. There job was to charge the enemy pike line and break the pikes. Basically, while a pike can kill the doppelsoldner before the doppelsolder can kill the pikeman, the doppelsoldner can destroy the pike far easier than the pikeman can break the man's sword.

And a pikeman without a pike is a big gaping hole to be exploited by the rest of the army.

[Fortinbras]

Aside from the Renaissance zweihannder where earlier medieval hand-and-a-half swords actually used on the battlefield or where they primarily for skirmishing and dueling? If so, what was their role?

[Thiel]

I have a quick question that came up last session. Tis' about warships and fighter craft.

The game was set in the Mass Effect universe and the party just boarded a Cruiser and set off the alarms.

Now, the question is: Assuming an intruder has been spotted - do ships lock their interior doors?

Yes.

And the second question: To Jet fighters have keys/keycodes/locks of any kind?

I believe so. And even if they don't, you don't just start a jet fighter. It takes a considerable amount of time several people and an APU

[Spiryt]

While they're effectiveness is in some dispute, they got double pay because they had possibly the most dangerous job. There job was to charge the enemy pike line and break the pikes. Basically, while a pike can kill the doppelsoldner before the doppelsolder can kill the pikeman, the doppelsoldner can destroy the pike far easier than the pikeman can break the man's sword.

And a pikeman without a pike is a big gaping hole to be exploited by the rest of the army.

This theory is generally considered very dubious, and even if actually destroying the pikes was possible at any larger scale, it couldn't be considered real 'job' on the field. Goal of such an attack would be to take out the pikemen, quite simply.

Other than that, the job of soldiers with two handed swords was to defend flanks, banners, camps, and all other places where combat was expected to be 'looser' due to many circumstances, I believe.

zweihannder where earlier medieval hand-and-a-half swords actually used on the battlefield or where they primarily for skirmishing and dueling? If so, what was their role?

I don't think that anyone can really know for sure - sources suggest that they could be just personal' battlefield weapons - to fight outside of tighter formation, where main weapon was 'spent' from whatever reason.

Knight dismounted, spear broken etc.

There's theory, originating from Ewart Oakeshott at least, that longswords roots lie in large cavalry sword, that would be used for powerful sweeping mounted strikes, and as two handed weapon on feet, if there was necessity to dismount.

And indeed a lot of XIII type swords are pretty hard to classify decisively as one handed weapon or longsword.

[J.Gellert]

From what I understand, the "point" of two-handed swords is that in swords, as in many weapons, "bigger is better" most of the time.

Once armor got so damn good that you no longer needed a shield (read: full plate) then everyone was happy to use the free hand for a bigger sword!

And that's pretty much just it. Would the two-handed swordsman have a special role on the battlefield? Not really. The pikemen have a special role, because a block of pikes is hard to maneuver and requires special attention to deploy. The swordsmen can simply do everything else better, so they would probably be doing everything else.

I am certain they would also be charging pike blocks from time to time. It wasn't even rare for cavalry to charge pike blocks, so why wouldn't the swordsmen? Sure, it can be avoided if you have missile troops, but when does everything go according to plan? (Never). Besides, I would think it's better to have your swordsmen charge the enemy pikes, than having your pikemen fight the enemy pikes...

[rrgg]

If you're talking about most two-handed longswords then then weren't necessarily all that long and allowed a knight to wear them at his hip while also carrying a lance or some other primary weapon.

The really huge greatswords used in later times I imagine falls in a category with the many "specialized" polearms such as the billhook, longaxe, war hammer, swordstaff, etc.


Somewhat interesting is that a lot greatsword-wielders apparently still saw the need to carry another, shorter sword, as a sidearm.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Keep in mind that the Dopple soldiers would be not charging a pikeblock in singles or such.

I cannot get my hands on it but I saw a story about a pikeblock that got charged by two dozen of them and they shattered the pikeblock and caused the battle to be lost to their side if it was not for the timely intervention of the Paymaster who hired the attackers instead of fighting them...

Turns out they were being paid a lot less on the opposing side so when they suddenly got real double pay they turned sides.

And yes, they would be using another sword or long dagger for close quarters fighting.
which is why they were so dangerous, they were to take on any battlefield tasks short of recon and ranged fighting instead of any specialists.

[Fortinbras]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms, and they were more expensive to produce, and they were to long to be side arms or comfortably carried in civilian life, why did two-handed swords continue to be produced for hundreds of years?

[Spiryt]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms

They were inferior to polearms in being a polearm...

They weren't generally 'inferior' whatever should that mean, evidently, as they were indeed being used in some situations, on many battlefields.

Seems that they were particularly popular in Scotland and Ireland too, presumably in more small scale raids and skirmishes.

[Mike_G]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms, and they were more expensive to produce, and they were to long to be side arms or comfortably carried in civilian life, why did two-handed swords continue to be produced for hundreds of years?

They aren't "inferior." They serve a purpose that pikes don't.

Pikes are better for keeping cavalry at bay, they have more reach, and they can put a lot of deadly points in a small area, which can be a big advantage at the point of contact, but in a loose formation, the sword will have an advantage.

Combined arms win battles, in pretty much all periods. A thousand pikemen are good at forming a block, but 700 pikemen, 200 archers and 100 swordsmen are a much more flexible army that will probably beat the thousand pike army.

[Deadmeat.GW]

Keep in mind my recollection of the story where 24 soldiers with two-handers went up to a pike block and broke it to the point the pike block needed help from the reserves...

Once you get past the danger zone and start breaking the pike block up in dispersed formation then the two-handers suddenly get the advantage.

All in all however a VERY dangerous job to do, you need to break the pike block in the first place after all.

[Deadmeat.GW]

I guess my main question about true two-handers (claymore, montante, etc.) is if they were inferior to polearms, and they were more expensive to produce, and they were to long to be side arms or comfortably carried in civilian life, why did two-handed swords continue to be produced for hundreds of years?

The comparisson here would be like saying that anti-tank guns are worse then normal artillery for shooting at infantry and completely ignoring what else you could do with the anti-tank guns that the regular artillery would have trouble with.

Not that current day anti-tank guns are really used since they got replaced by tow's and such but I am sure you understand what I mean.

[Eldan]

Not really a weapon question, but something I was wondering about:
How does heavy cavalry, and horses in general, fare on loose desert sand? Walking on sand dunes can be quite slow on foot, so, how much does it slow down horses?

I was playing Mount and blade and invading the desert nation with plate-clad knights, hence the question.

[Joran]

I believe so. And even if they don't, you don't just start a jet fighter. It takes a considerable amount of time several people and an APU

According to various sites on the Internet, it depends on the type of plane. Private jets and small airplanes seem to have keys, similar to a car, while jet fighters and airliners don't appear to have any sort of lock.

http://www.airwarriors.com/community...control.29875/

However, there is a really long start-up process for modern aircraft and it's hard to launch a plane by oneself. For the Mass Effect universe, if you've played Mass Effect 3, the Cerberus launch system required a hack into the system to launch a fighter.

[eulmanis12]

Keep in mind my recollection of the story where 24 soldiers with two-handers went up to a pike block and broke it to the point the pike block needed help from the reserves...

Once you get past the danger zone and start breaking the pike block up in dispersed formation then the two-handers suddenly get the advantage.

All in all however a VERY dangerous job to do, you need to break the pike block in the first place after all.

another good example of something similar happening would be the battle of Cynoscephalae during the second Macedonian war. The Romans were able to get into the side of the phalanx where their short swords were able to reach the enemy but the Macedonians could not respond due to the length of their pikes.