Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[Chromascope3D]

This makes little sense; any weapon, hell almost anything works surprisingly well to kill a helpless opponent and small, thin weapons tend to work better unless you are trying to go for spectacular results (cutting off or severely crushing parts of the body) daggers have through history been the favored weapon for such acts (notably the misericorde) because they make it easier to bypass the armor and get to the fleshy bits, as well as being easier to use in extremely close quarters.A full length sword, especially a slashing sword like a katana, is not good at avoiding armor, and although it can be quite sharp, you don't need it to be when you are hitting an immobile, helpless and unarmored target, as your weapon will, in most probability, go straight through if it is at least the size of a large knife.

Not necessarily. A weapon has to have heft and power behind it to cleave all the way through. A balanced blade typically wouldn't have the heft required to cleave through a body in one fell swing. Also, why are we arguing about whether a katana could be effective against armor? We both know they weren't and aren't, and a knight could probably mop the floor with a samurai. However, it never came to that, because they never met. The Japanese were generally less armored, making it an ideal land for curved, sharp blades. Also, who says they didn't have their own form of daggers?

Furthermore, a katana is extremely difficult to use effectively (to make a cutting motion) against a target who isn't upright or at least raised from the ground (you'll end up hitting the object through the target, and probably end up with a chopping, rather than cutting motion, for which you want a weapon balanced further towards the blade).

But a penitent man wouldn't have his head on the ground, and let's face it, the Japanese (I apologize for any offense taken, I was merely stating facts) tend to be shorter than those of the rest of the world, and they'd be closer to the ground and the target than a typical European trying to use it. And yeah, if the executioner stood straight up, knees locked, and swung from straight overhead, then he'd probably run out of blade before he ran out of space (between the blade and the targets flesh, I mean). Thankfully, anyone who's in that position of power probably knows that that's a terrible stance to deliver a powerful blow with, and also that all katanas were drawn from the waist (and were usually swung while being drawn, ending with the sharp edge of the blade facing up).

I never said I liked the katana. I was just trying to explain it to the curious individual. I, like you, hold the sword in distaste because of all the needless praise it gets. However, that doesn't mean I'd give no credit where at least some is due. In medieval Japan, it was a very effective weapon. Would it be that way if all the samurai ran around like European knights? No. But since that wasn't ever the case, arguments that use that as a basis will lose their footing every time. You also lose footing when your argument lacks focus. You made comparisons between multiple weapons against one. Of course the one is going to come out under in the end.

In short, while all weapons are effective in killing a man, some require more effort than others. Since it's implied in roleplaying games that characters expend the same amount of energy in every swing unless told otherwise, it's safe to say that a heavy, sharp (and they were really sharp, their owners made sure of that daily) blade such as katana would have an easier time lopping the head off an individual than a European longsword. That's all I have to and am going to say on that particular matter. I don't fancy waging an inconsequential war about a subject I don't particularly care about with someone I don't know on the internet.

[Conners]

A balanced sword is perfectly adequate for removing someone's topper. You don't need a heavy weapon for that.

Knights mopping the floor with samurai is more complicated than you'd think.

Notably, katanas are secondary weapons on the battlefield. There will be ways of dealing with armour with a katana, but you can't just cut through it.

They would've had daggers. Jester was just pointing out that a dagger should get a bonus for attacks against downed opponents, since that's something the dagger is well-suited for. Katanas are no more suited for hitting downed people than they are hitting upright people.


There isn't need to argue about whether a Katana works well for executions--just, it doesn't work specially well.

Just want to point out that the katana wasn't made to deal with armoured guys (it can, but it's generally stuff like slashing the unarmoured parts). Its use is as a back-up weapon, and for fights with unarmoured people (duels, bandits, etc.).
Jester's point is that the Katana has no extra advantages, when the opponent is down and you're executing them.

Blade sharpness is often misrepresented. If you make a blade too sharp, it gets damaged easily (which also blunts it). The Katana is probably similarly if not equally sharp to other swords across the world.

That's all I have to and am going to say on that particular matter. I don't fancy waging an inconsequential war about a subject I don't particularly care about with someone I don't know on the internet.

There's no need to treat the discussion with disdain.

[Spiryt]

Pathfinder uses a different set of stats

It's given a 1d8 of damage, 18-20/x2, and has a +4 to coup de gras.

I, personally, prefer these stats. The Katana was a weapon meant for slicing flesh. A longsword is different, being straight and double edged, thus it would have a different set of stats. You can easily force a European sword through plate armor (If the armor in question is prostrate or otherwise not moving). A katana, not so much. Because it's so good at cutting flesh, though, of course it should have a higher crit range. The coup de gras bonus also makes sense because it was so good at executing kneeling peasants. Also ne'er-do-wells, I guess.

Again and again - define "European Sword" - because since ~ 1300 there's such a richness of forms... Including ones that are very much mostly for slicing flesh.

And you cannot easily force any sword trough plate armor. Just not. There's a dispute if you can at all, let alone easily.

And should it come to this, and someone had to try from whatever reason, most katanas wouldn't be worst choice at all - acute, but compact point, in most cases, thick, stiff spine, and generally no vibrations, and so on.

[gkathellar]

Not necessarily. A weapon has to have heft and power behind it to cleave all the way through. A balanced blade typically wouldn't have the heft required to cleave through a body in one fell swing.

Point one: balance and heft are not mutually exclusive. This is a fundamental misconception about "European" swords vs. "Asian" swords: if you've ever handled a combat steel jian or katana, you'll know that it is heavy. And if you've ever had the pleasure of holding a combat steel arming sword or longsword, you'll know that a well-made one is well balanced exquisitely.

Weight = Power, Weight ≠ Imbalance.

But uh, point two: just about none of these weapons were designed to lop a man's head clean off. Sure, the Japanese sometimes tested the sharpness of their swords by murdering criminals, but if someone's perfectly immobilized, you can cut off anyone head with anything big enough. Cutting off a head when the person's not immobilized is notably more difficult. You slash or stab at someone's neck, odds are you're aiming for the windpipe, the carotid, or the jugular. You stab at someone's belly, the point is not to impale them clean through, it's to cause organ trauma and bleeding. Cut a limb, and your objective to to tear the muscles and tendons, not rip the arm straight off. Heavier weapons can overpower an opponent more effectively, and weight is often a corollary of size and durability, but what weight doesn't do is allow you to cleave through solid metal (armor ain't wet paper, guy), or even really solid person.

Also, why are we arguing about whether a katana could be effective against armor? We both know they weren't and aren't, and a knight could probably mop the floor with a samurai.

I'm not clear on what this statement even means. I think it mean that a cutting edge is largely ineffective against platemail, in which case, yes, that's absolutely correct. But to be fair, most things not specifically designed for use against platemail are ineffective against platemail (at least without a dedicated set of anti-plate techniques).

and also that all katanas were drawn from the waist (and were usually swung while being drawn, ending with the sharp edge of the blade facing up).

Two more things: First, draw cuts are a weapon of last resort, even in kenjutsu, as you never start a fight with your blade sheathed if you can help it. Second, the blade is usually held horizontal after a draw cut, although this obviously varies based on the particulars of the technique employed.

[Matthew]

My point that was lost in the initial debate over how "longsword" was misused in the earliest D&D editions and that the misuse got carried forwards.

It was not really a misuse, so much as that the nomenclature of weaponry has changed, or become more codified, in the meantime. For a game that uses extremely abstracted weapons, the division into "long" and "short" bladed swords was also very practical.

[Yora]

Point one: balance and heft are not mutually exclusive. This is a fundamental misconception about "European" swords vs. "Asian" swords: if you've ever handled a combat steel jian or katana, you'll know that it is heavy. And if you've ever had the pleasure of holding a combat steel arming sword or longsword, you'll know that a well-made one is well balanced exquisitely.

Weight = Power, Weight ≠ Imbalance.

Actually, more weight means more stability. Because of Newtons first law "an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by an outside force". Sometimes this is desirable, as when it makes it more difficult to deflect a blow, and sometimes it's a hinderance, as when you want to abruptly chance the direction of the strike.
And then you have swords in which it is desirable that the tip can move a lot from a small movement by the hand, and others in which you want the tip to stay in place even while changing from a high guard to a low guard.
Lower weight is not always desireable. Think about fighting with a sword that has the weight of a reed or a thin plastic rod. Yes, it's incredibly fast and nimble, but how are you going to really hurt someone with it. You might nick the skin if you can slice through the clothing and there might be a chance to impale the enemy with a thrust. But you need weight to get some real force into a blow.

[Chromascope3D]

Again and again - define "European Sword" - because since ~ 1300 there's such a richness of forms... Including ones that are very much mostly for slicing flesh.

I meant an arming sword. The person wanted to know how it compared to a typical European arming sword, so I answered. The fact that I said "European sword," was just an oversight that I assumed would make sense when read in context.

Blade sharpness is often misrepresented. If you make a blade too sharp, it gets damaged easily (which also blunts it). The Katana is probably similarly if not equally sharp to other swords across the world.

You hit it right on the nail here. The katana as a weapon is very sharp, and is also very brittle and easily blunted. What they don't tell you about the sword is that samurai would spend time daily polishing and sharpening the blade as a work-around. Prolonged swordfights were very rare, presumably because both swordsman knew that swordfights would be terrible for their weapons. I'm not saying they didn't happen, I'm just saying that they weren't as common as most would think.

There's no need to treat the discussion with disdain.

I apologize. It's just that these always start calmly enough, and then escalate quickly. I don't want to be a part of that. I just want to say my piece and be done with it. I'm sorry if I don't explicitly mention each and every point that can be made in its case.

The bonus given to the katana is:

Deadly: When this weapon delivers a coup de grace, it gains +4 to damage when calculating the DC of the Fortitude saving throw to see whether the target of the coup de grace dies from the attack. The bonus is not added to the actual damage of the coup de grace attack.

I don't have enough time at the moment to respond to everything in detail, if any of you aren't satisfied with my answers, I'll be back later.

[Spiryt]

I meant an arming sword. The person wanted to know how it compared to a typical European arming sword, so I answered. The fact that I said "European sword," was just an oversight that I assumed would make sense when read in context.

It ('arming sword') still doesn't really mean anything at all. Just as 'typical'.

Are you familiar with Oakeshott typology, for starters?

You hit it right on the nail here. The katana as a weapon is very sharp, and is also very brittle and easily blunted. What they don't tell you about the sword is that samurai would spend time daily polishing and sharpening the blade as a work-around. Prolonged swordfights were very rare, presumably because both swordsman knew that swordfights would be terrible for their weapons. I'm not saying they didn't happen, I'm just saying that they weren't as common as most would think.

Who are "they"?

And prolonged (long)sword were rare everywhere anytime, because without shield or armor someone was getting badly hurt really fast.

99% swords out there are going to get damaged, slightly to badly by inappropriate slamming into other swords, armors, and generally substantial things, they are not contruction-work hammers.

Somewhere recently katanas in popular culture are getting from 'cutting tanks' to stuff that falls apart during use.

[Matthew]

Somewhere recently katanas in popular culture are getting from 'cutting tanks' to stuff that falls apart during use.

ha, ha; yes, the pendulum swings too far.

[Yora]

The steel in the edge is brittle. That's why there's always a big block of softer steel in the back of the blade to keep the sword from breaking.
And the edge is brittle because that reduces the amount of resharpening that it needs. Soft steel becomes blunt faster, so you need to sharpen it more often and more agressively. Hardness also increases the chance that you get chinks in the edge that just snap off, while in a softer blade you will get more of a dent, that can be straightened out. But swordfighting is never about bashing blades together edge on edge, because that will damage every sword.

[Spiryt]

The steel in the edge is brittle. That's why there's always a big block of softer steel in the back of the blade to keep the sword from breaking.
And the edge is brittle because that reduces the amount of resharpening that it needs.

That's not really good in any way though....

Rolled, bent, blunted edge can be always get sorted out with more or less wear to it, chinks and breaks in brittle surface are worse, and they may quickly be dangerous to the integrity of whole thing.

Harder is better, but it comes with the price, so most edges were some kind of compromise.

[Yora]

I just learned that it can damage a bow when the string is releaqsed without an arrow to push against. Hadn't though of that, but I can see how that would be.

However, I came upon this sentence:
"Wood bows should only be drawn to the corner of the mouth, unlike conventional bows, they should not be draw to the ear."

Doesn't that entirely depend on the size of the bow and the length of the users arms?

[Spiryt]

It means that bow shouldn't be overdrawn - beyond it's intended weight and lenght, and wooden (self)bows tend to rather vulnerable to abuse, at least compared to modern laminates, carbon/glass fibers and so on.

So it depends what is "conventional" bow here, as selfbows were in fact pretty conventional for good 60 000 years.

[gkathellar]

Actually, more weight means more stability.

Yes, that's uh. That's what I said. Weight is equivalent to Power, but Weight is not equivalent to Imbalance.

[Galloglaich]

Signal to noise ratio is getting a little off around here.

Katanas were / are good swords, effective, dangerous. Different from the wide variety of different types of European swords, not necessarily better or worse. In fact some like certain types of kriegmesser were actually pretty similar in many respects.

All swords can get damaged in combat.

No sword is 'good' against armor.

Spears are effective weapons too. But,

Most spears cannot 'easily' pierce plate armor either, even in a coup-de-grace.

I know it's hard to understand but this is the reality.

G

[Knaight]

Most spears cannot 'easily' pierce plate armor either, even in a coup-de-grace.

Also, if you're in a position to deliver a coup de grace, you are in a position to avoid the armor in the first place. Even if, hypothetically, you could get through the armor easily, you'd be better off not doing so.

[Conners]

In my defence, I didn't mean that a pike/spear could easily get through plate--I just meant that it might be able to get through, if the knight was pinned and unable to move (this is assuming you use this chance to thrust very strongly).



On the note of sharpness... how quickly and badly would blades lose their edge? Would a sword become temporarily useless with a few minutes of front-line battle? Or would it be fine till the end of a battle even with much use? Does blunting/chipping cripple a sword, or is a sword still quite useable even after blunting and chipping?

[Galloglaich]

I think it's usually still usable and can last a while, but it can also break or get a bad ding or bend. In test-cutting I've seen all of the above happen, mostly with somewhat crap swords, but I've also had both high-end (Albion) and low end (Windlass) swords stand up to an amazing amount of abuse for years and years, and it seems to take a fairly long time (several cutting sessions on all kinds of material including wood, bone, and accidentally cutting through a paint can one time) before it gets dull. If you keep them fairly sharp putting the edge back on it doesn't take very long either.

A far more bigger hassle is constantly keeping them lightly oiled and quickly sanding off any trace of rust that appears. Most of us aren't used to dealing with carbon steel, it's not like stainless. You have to keep up with the maintenance. That is why I don't keep more than a couple of blades at any one time, I tend to keep the ones I like the best and give the others away.

I think VERY generally speaking you could probably expect a sword to make it through several fights (I think!). That might mean one battle or half a battle or three or four, or a whole lifetime.

From my experience, striking two sharp swords edge to edge will usually ding at least one of them if not both, which means later it has to be sharpened out, and shortens the lifespan of the blade some. (of course parrying does not always necessarily happen with the edge and you don't even necessarily parry in a fight). With historical / antique swords we do often see evidence of this kind of honing especially near the forte where you are supposed to parry, sometimes they get indented and become a little bit concave there from this. I have an antique (early 19th Century) Tulwar which is concave like that. I like to pretend to myself it is due to being dinged up in battle though who the hell knows.

There are some amusing anecdotes in the Norse sagas where some famous sword gets dinged and the owner get's super angry about it. If I have time later I'll try to find one or maybe someone else can. I remember one where there was a famous sword with a name, and it was lent to a young guy who was in a feud, and he chipped it during a duel, and the guy he borrowed it from (I think his uncle) wanted to kill him!

G

[Galloglaich]

Also, if you're in a position to deliver a coup de grace, you are in a position to avoid the armor in the first place. Even if, hypothetically, you could get through the armor easily, you'd be better off not doing so.

Yes I think that is the point, and quite often done with a misericorde....

Though to be fair, a lance strike at a full gallop does seem to have been able to pierce armor plate sometimes, as do various armor-piercing weapons. Awl-pike for example could be a type of spear that could do that.

And of course it depends on the quality of the armor.

Generally though I think it's always more likely and easier to go around the armor if possible.

G

[Brother Oni]

I just learned that it can damage a bow when the string is releaqsed without an arrow to push against. Hadn't though of that, but I can see how that would be.

It's usually refered to as dry firing, and is generally very bad for the bow.

All bow manufacturers I can think of, do not have a warranty against dry firing damage, so it's an indication of how destructive it can be.

[Conners]

You know how in movies and with Batman, they manage to disable everyone without killing them fairly quickly and easily? Anyone know much about the reality of this?

A lucky/unlucky hit can kill a person, I'm aware. I've also heard of unconsciousness usually lasting for pretty short amounts of time?

Are there ways to quickly disable a person without killing or crippling them?

[Spiryt]

You know how in movies and with Batman, they manage to disable everyone without killing them fairly quickly and easily? Anyone know much about the reality of this?

A lucky/unlucky hit can kill a person, I'm aware. I've also heard of unconsciousness usually lasting for pretty short amounts of time?

Are there ways to quickly disable a person without killing or crippling them?

That honestly depends on what you mean "by crippling" and how much time you can spent, how long do you want someone disabled and so on....

Hard punch, knee or whatever to the jaw, gut etc. will disable most 'normal' people for a while, and theoretically is not very crippling, but with a bit of bad luck it can be for someone in not so good shape.

Well applied blood choke can put someone unconscious in the matter of seconds, but it won't last long, and can be harmful as well, if victim has cardiovascular problems, for example.

[Kaeso]

How effective were the most early firearms (arquebuse and later musket)? By that I mean how much of a chance would a knight/conquistador wearing plate armor/a breastplate stand when fired upon?

[MickJay]

Best answer would be 'it depends'. Quality and shape of the plate, caliber of the gun, amount of gunpowder used, distance from which the bullet was fired are all variables that need to be taken into account. That's not even considering the accuracy of the earliest guns, which was notoriously bad.

Plate armour certainly did offer a degree of protection, there are examples in museums that have visible dents where a bullet was deflected. High quality armour would often be 'proofed' (a pistol was shot at it, and the resulting dent would attest to the protection the plate offered). On the other hand, there are plenty of pieces of armour that have been pierced by bullets as well.

[Spiryt]

How effective were the most early firearms (arquebuse and later musket)? By that I mean how much of a chance would a knight/conquistador wearing plate armor/a breastplate stand when fired upon?

Hard to tell for sure, but there are quite a bit of period sources, together with breastplates dented by bullets and modern tests.

All this would hugely depends on bullet velocity, mass together with qualities and thickness of armor, then angle, and all other usual factors.

Generally, it is believed that with well made and operated musket, significant distance (100 yards+) would be needed for breastplate etc. to hold up.

Between 16th and 17th century, some of the heaviest personal armor were being employed by heavy cavalry, able to withstand even very hard hits, but were eventually discarded as well.

Spoiler

Show

[Storm Bringer]

How effective were the most early firearms (arquebuse and later musket)? By that I mean how much of a chance would a knight/conquistador wearing plate armor/a breastplate stand when fired upon?

variable.

a top of the line breastplate could normally defeat a shot form a contempory gun (the term "bullet proof" comes form the practice of the smith shooting the finished armour, then leaving the dent made as "proof" the armour would stop a shot), however, their are a LOT of Variables. Older plater armour built to stop arrows is much thinner (and, be extension, lighter), so wouldn't stop a shot. Also, early guns were very vairable form shot to shot, due to variable power of the gunpowder (due to an inconsistant mix, and the non-standardised amount per shot), the bullets having a poor fit to the barrel (partly poor quality control, but also a deliberate choice to ensure the round would fit down a fouled barrel in the heat of battle), and the rather awkward firing and reloading procedure (which, while it can be taught to anyone, requires a lot of practice to do quickly and accuratly when someone is trying to kill you). the net result is that one shot will have a much different muzzle energy and flight profile to the next shot form the same gun. Also, range played a big part as right up until rifles were introduced, a muskets range was 100 yards if you were lucky.


Guns took a long time to evolve to the point they could really replace other weapons. Their were primitive cannons at Crecy in 1346, but the last recorded use of bows en masse in england is in 1642 in the English Civil War, and it was only in the first few years of the 1700s that pikes for infantry few out of favour (and the Swedes were still using them effectivly in the 1720's)

[Spiryt]

variable.
Also, early guns were very vairable form shot to shot, due to variable power of the gunpowder (due to an inconsistant mix, and the non-standardised amount per shot), the bullets having a poor fit to the barrel (partly poor quality control, but also a deliberate choice to ensure the round would fit down a fouled barrel in the heat of battle), and the rather awkward firing and reloading procedure (which, while it can be taught to anyone, requires a lot of practice to do quickly and accuratly when someone is trying to kill you). the net result is that one shot will have a much different muzzle energy and flight profile to the next shot form the same gun. Also, range played a big part as right up until rifles were introduced, a muskets range was 100 yards if you were lucky.

As far as inconsistent shot, much depended on shooter, as usual - if he was good one, and knew what he's doing, or if he barely could load and shoot.

And musket range was much, much bigger than 100 yards, we can dispute that 'effective' range was 100 yards, but hitting large formations could easily happen from bigger distance as well.

[Conners]

That honestly depends on what you mean "by crippling" and how much time you can spent, how long do you want someone disabled and so on....

Hard punch, knee or whatever to the jaw, gut etc. will disable most 'normal' people for a while, and theoretically is not very crippling, but with a bit of bad luck it can be for someone in not so good shape.

Well applied blood choke can put someone unconscious in the matter of seconds, but it won't last long, and can be harmful as well, if victim has cardiovascular problems, for example.

Mostly meant serious permanent damage, such as removing a limb or the ability to walk.

Generally, the amount of time spent is a split second, since movie heroes tend to do this while fighting eight guys.

[Spiryt]

Mostly meant serious permanent damage, such as removing a limb or the ability to walk.

Generally, the amount of time spent is a split second, since movie heroes tend to do this while fighting eight guys.

Movie fights with eight guys, and such a bad guys falling after receiving one weird blow, as well as said heroes executing some elaborate movements flawlessly in such conditions...

Are total rubbish, I think that this goes without saying.

As far as split seconds ways of incapacitating someone go, then all kinds of strikes are obviously way to go.

Good Boxer, kickboxer, thai-boxer etc. , especially one of heavier weight can easily put 'average guy' out of action with one strike. Sometimes just for 10 seconds, sometimes for long time, in case of clean K O.

So it really depends on situation.

[Conners]

It's definitely rubbish except for 1 in a million cases. Just wondering how quickly a person can reliably disable enemies without causing death or dismemberment.

Simply being very powerful might be enough, where you can cause them some broken ribs and mild internal bleeding with one solid hit (even most tough guys won't want to continue with that)? Other than that, breaking/dislocating a limb is probably a very efficient way of removing someone from the fight?