Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk X

[huttj509]

Switching gears to science fiction for a moment...

Plausible armaments for spacecraft. Missiles? Projectile weapons, even gauss or railguns, would probably be ineffective except at extreme(relative) close range, or against targets that can't manouver. Lasers would work over long distance, if not for how easy it'd be to coat a ship with some kind of reflective material. Not like stealth is a design consideration anyway.

You'd have to have something with self-guiding capability. Dodging a beam of light is EASY at space distances, just keep changing direction. The earth is about 8 minutes away from the Sun, as far as light goes. Even 1 light-second distance (about 300,000 km) makes it hard to hit an evading target, and getting THAT close in the 3d environment of space would pretty much require knowing your target's exact route, and ambushing it somewhere it needs to pass by (such as it's start or destination).

If you look up in the sky, that's not where the sun is. It's where the sun WAS 8 minutes ago. Heck, the moon? That's right next door and it takes light 1.3 seconds or so to reach us from there.

[Hawkfrost000]

Switching gears to science fiction for a moment...

Plausible armaments for spacecraft. Missiles? Projectile weapons, even gauss or railguns, would probably be ineffective except at extreme(relative) close range, or against targets that can't manouver. Lasers would work over long distance, if not for how easy it'd be to coat a ship with some kind of reflective material. Not like stealth is a design consideration anyway.

Missiles as primary offensive weapons, Lasers as point defense and for use at "knife fight" range.

I was always a bit uncertain about the whole stealth argument. Sure while you are making a burn you are very easy to see. But as soon as you stop actively emitting radiation the only way you can emit heat is through the radiation of the heat that is keeping your ship warm (and other basic functions) and you would be about as easy to see as a piece of rock, and easily confused for one.

'least that's what i think, anyone is welcome to prove me wrong.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

Switching gears to science fiction for a moment...

Plausible armaments for spacecraft. Missiles? Projectile weapons, even gauss or railguns, would probably be ineffective except at extreme(relative) close range, or against targets that can't manouver. Lasers would work over long distance, if not for how easy it'd be to coat a ship with some kind of reflective material. Not like stealth is a design consideration anyway.

It seems to me that projectile weapons will be the way to go, for longer ranged combat. A railgun/RKV type weapon with guided ammunition (retrorockets or inertial systems can enable this) will be the weapon of choice, assuming something radical and new doesn't come along. Missiles may also work, though fuel would be a consideration - why carry all that fuel for initial acceleration and guidance when you can get the initial acceleration from an external system? Lasers, on the other hand, have issues - they lose coherence at great distances, if there's interstellar matter between you and your target there will be heat bloom, and lasers cannot correct their trajectory before impact.

Stealth will likely be a design factor - less so passive stealth, but active stealth (ECM, ECCM, ECCCM, plasma-stealth, etc.) will be very important, just as it is in modern air, land, and sea combat.

[Knaight]

Switching gears to science fiction for a moment...

Plausible armaments for spacecraft. Missiles? Projectile weapons, even gauss or railguns, would probably be ineffective except at extreme(relative) close range, or against targets that can't manouver. Lasers would work over long distance, if not for how easy it'd be to coat a ship with some kind of reflective material. Not like stealth is a design consideration anyway.

Lasers are not going to work over long distances, for the simple reason that, unlike missiles, they can't change direction while propagating (among other reasons). Say that there is a laser trying to hit a circular cross section with a radius of a kilometer. At 1 light second (3*10^5 km) that needs to be accurate to 1.91*10^-4 degrees to hit at all, and that assumes deviation in only one direction. Good luck getting anything to be that accurate.

Now, lets take the laser example further. Say that the laser is being fired from a one kilometer long tube. That's an incredibly long tube, but it makes the math easier. With one end stationary, at 1 light second there's a grand total of 19cm allowed in the position of the other, assuming it is perfectly aligned on one axis. That's very precise, but should be doable. In practice, both sides would move, which reduces the likely precision.

Note that this is for one light second, and assumes a stationary target, with perfect information for their location. If something is several light minutes away, and is moving relative to the target the shot is likely a good three orders of magnitude harder. Good luck with anything linear in that context.

A missile, on the other hand, can change course. That makes them much more likely to be functional.

[Hawkfrost000]

It seems to me that projectile weapons will be the way to go, for longer ranged combat. A railgun/RKV type weapon with guided ammunition (retrorockets or inertial systems can enable this) will be the weapon of choice, assuming something radical and new doesn't come along. Missiles may also work, though fuel would be a consideration - why carry all that fuel for initial acceleration and guidance when you can get the initial acceleration from an external system? Lasers, on the other hand, have issues - they lose coherence at great distances, if there's interstellar matter between you and your target there will be heat bloom, and lasers cannot correct their trajectory before impact.

Stealth will likely be a design factor - less so passive stealth, but active stealth (ECM, ECCM, ECCCM, plasma-stealth, etc.) will be very important, just as it is in modern air, land, and sea combat.

Thats a very good point about stealth, however i have my doubts about projectiles.

Projectiles by their nature either need to be very fast or very heavy to be useful (preferably both). If they are very fast then they need a lot (seriously a lot) of reaction mass in order to change direction. If they are very heavy then they have the same problems with directional change, but also weigh a lot, probably more than a missile of equivalent destructive power.

Also in order to properly track a target moving (relatively) freely in 3 dimensions you do need an active homing system.

So in order to beat a missile at is own game you need a bullet that can make significant course changes, automatically home in on a target and still be relatively lightweight.

Sounds like a missile.

DM

[warty goblin]

Thats a very good point about stealth, however i have my doubts about projectiles.

Projectiles by their nature either need to be very fast or very heavy to be useful (preferably both). If they are very fast then they need a lot (seriously a lot) of reaction mass in order to change direction. If they are very heavy then they have the same problems with directional change, but also weigh a lot, probably more than a missile of equivalent destructive power.

Also in order to properly track a target moving (relatively) freely in 3 dimensions you do need an active homing system.

So in order to beat a missile at is own game you need a bullet that can make significant course changes, automatically home in on a target and still be relatively lightweight.

Sounds like a missile.

DM

The thing is you gain considerable fuel economy by using a gun type system to accelerate your projectile to at least near its final velocity. It seems to me that gun or missile is a false dichotomy, when a gun-fired missile gains most of the advantages of both while doing a pretty good job of covering the disadvantages.

The real puzzle with space combat is how to actually attack anything. Unless you happen to have some sort of faster than light travel, your enemy is going to get plenty of warning of your incipient attack. If you are trying to attack between solar systems your technology could be years behind that of your enemies by the time you arrive. Worse, they've had the luxury of watching your ships for all those years, getting progressively better and better intel so they can purpose build their defenses.

[razark]

But as soon as you stop actively emitting radiation the only way you can emit heat is through the radiation of the heat that is keeping your ship warm (and other basic functions)...

Heat is one of the big problems a spaceship would face. Everything the ship does is going to create waste heat. Generating power, sending power through wires, lighting a light bulb, running life support systems, cooking food, etc. are all daily activities that will generate heat. Propulsion systems will need to dump waste heat as well. Most types of weapon systems will require massive amounts of waste heat removal. Even the rather simple ISS requires massive radiators to operate.

A spaceship could appear as a rock, but it's going to appear as a very warm rock.

Plausible armaments for spacecraft. Missiles? Projectile weapons, even gauss or railguns, would probably be ineffective except at extreme(relative) close range, or against targets that can't manouver. Lasers would work over long distance, if not for how easy it'd be to coat a ship with some kind of reflective material. Not like stealth is a design consideration anyway.

Depends on the spacecraft involved. Any combat likely to occur between spacecraft within the next couple hundred years will use missiles as the primary armament, and projectiles as the backup. Combat will be close range, and maneuverability will be extremely low. Victory will tend to go to whichever vessel makes best use of countermeasures or pulls the trigger first.

[Ashtagon]

Switching gears to science fiction for a moment...

Plausible armaments for spacecraft. Missiles? Projectile weapons, even gauss or railguns, would probably be ineffective except at extreme(relative) close range, or against targets that can't manouver. Lasers would work over long distance, if not for how easy it'd be to coat a ship with some kind of reflective material. Not like stealth is a design consideration anyway.

A lot depends on what ranges you expect to engage the enemy, and how much spare fuel you expect to carry.

Real lasers, unlike science fiction ones, follow the inverse-square law, and so at space combat distances attenuate incredibly fast. Otoh, they are effectively impossible to dodge.

Guns and mass drivers would be the next hardest to dodge, seeing as how they effectively give off no signature to be tracked by. Otoh, Newton's law will work against the attacker her to drive them off course. Every salvo of mass driver fire will put you off course and will need correcting. Real world space craft are already something on the order of 95% fuel tank.

A side effect of the extreme volume of fuel needed is that maximum velocity and manoeuvrability will be extremely limited. Don't expect too much dodging. Stealth will be far more important. Note that it is also quite hard to detect a space craft at the dozens of miles range, unless you know exactly where to look. NASA has this luxury; hostile craft don't (and they won't have such massive sensor suites either).

Probably the most effective weapons will be either missiles armed with EMP warheads, or one-shot "guns" that decouple themselves from your ship with very weak boosters, point themselves at the right point in space, then launch high-velocity "shrapnel" rounds, simulating the effects of a small meteorite shower.

[Hawkfrost000]

The thing is you gain considerable fuel economy by using a gun type system to accelerate your projectile to at least near its final velocity. It seems to me that gun or missile is a false dichotomy, when a gun-fired missile gains most of the advantages of both while doing a pretty good job of covering the disadvantages.

The real puzzle with space combat is how to actually attack anything. Unless you happen to have some sort of faster than light travel, your enemy is going to get plenty of warning of your incipient attack. If you are trying to attack between solar systems your technology could be years behind that of your enemies by the time you arrive. Worse, they've had the luxury of watching your ships for all those years, getting progressively better and better intel so they can purpose build their defenses.

The first wars in space will doubtless be fought between humans within our own solar system. Time will still play a part but it will be on the scale of weeks rather than years.

My concept of space battles is that they usually occur in object of or near area that you desire to control. One side holds the site and the other wants to hold it, and in doing so must remove its original controllers ability to project force onto the area.

People tend to forget that there is a huge amount of real estate in our solar system alone, thought it requires work to get at. People focus far too much on life bearing planets.

DM

[huttj509]

People tend to forget that there is a huge amount of real estate in our solar system alone, thought it requires work to get at. People focus far too much on life bearing planets.

DM

Well, in part that's because while there's resource bearing moons/asteroids, the cost to move everything into/out of a gravity well to get it to a life bearing planet where it can be used is huge.

Unless we have orbital crafting facilities or something, the cost for any sort of regular resource transport between planets/moons isn't practical unless we find some redonculuously rare/useful Unobtanium.

Well, or if we discover some sort of gravity control so we don't need to fight the gravity wells to move anything anywhere, but that's rapidly leaving the "real world" area as far as we know.

[Talakeal]

Well, in part that's because while there's resource bearing moons/asteroids, the cost to move everything into/out of a gravity well to get it to a life bearing planet where it can be used is huge.

Unless we have orbital crafting facilities or something, the cost for any sort of regular resource transport between planets/moons isn't practical unless we find some redonculuously rare/useful Unobtanium.

Well, or if we discover some sort of gravity control so we don't need to fight the gravity wells to move anything anywhere, but that's rapidly leaving the "real world" area as far as we know.

Energy is cheap. Once you are dealing with nuclear energy of direct matter to energy conversions escaping gravity wells is simple, and even solar energy will work if you have enough time, Remember, most moons and asteroids have very little gravity compared to planets. On many the human body could achieve escape velocity just by jumping.
If you had some sort of self replicating mining robot you could easily strip mine the solar system and have everything delivered to you in a nice neat little package. I imagine the biggest problem would be getting it down to the surface of the Earth intact, although if you have orbiting construction yards even this is a minimal problem.

[fusilier]

The problem of hitting a moving target at long ranges is nothing new. It was a problem faced by battleship designers before WW2. The idea of a seeking missile of some sort for long range makes sense, although efficacy would depend upon how good active defenses are. The other option is large barrages to "bracket" the opponent. If that fails, attempting to get closer is always an option.

[warty goblin]

The problem of hitting a moving target at long ranges is nothing new. It was a problem faced by battleship designers before WW2. The idea of a seeking missile of some sort for long range makes sense, although efficacy would depend upon how good active defenses are. The other option is large barrages to "bracket" the opponent. If that fails, attempting to get closer is always an option.

I'd be fairly certain bracketing volleys would be pretty much necessary anyways, along with self-guided projectiles loaded with some sort of area of effect warhead. Actually directly hitting a moving target is going to be very hard. Since space craft are probably going to be hard to armor though, smashing it up with lots of shell fragments seems quite viable. Even if lots of ball bearings isn't enough to actually destroy an enemy, all it really has to do is to batter off enough of the external systems to paralyze and cripple it.

[Raum]

I'm not convinced hitting a moving space ship at light second ranges with computer support is significantly more difficult than hitting sailing ships with cannon at kilometer ranges. Both move in three dimensions but the space ship is actually more predictable. It's not getting tossed by the sea and has detectable exhaust which may be used to extrapolate directions. Besides, inertia still matters at macro scales (unless we're speculating beyond anything known) and it takes time to move. One second won't get you far.

I think the bigger problem with lasers is going to be attenuation and much smaller scale movement. Unless you can pack truly massive amounts of power into a laser, a minimal amount of armor combined with spin should mitigate or even prevent damage. Depends on just how much power we're talking of putting into the laser.

The Navy (was) is testing a 32 kw laser system and trying to work up to a 100 kw system (which they don't have the power for currently). Granted, they're dealing with maritime conditions which are very disruptive of lasers but I think they'd have to scale it up significantly to do damage over a light second distance even in space.

[fusilier]

Since space craft are probably going to be hard to armor though . . .

They said the same thing about sea going craft . . . :-)

Ultimately it's up to who ever is writing the science fiction. If space craft are well armored, then they can come in close and duke it out, if their long range systems are too inaccurate, or too easily defeated by defensive systems. If space craft aren't armored, then who ever gets a hit "close enough"* first, wins. Of course, the more armored vessel may be able to risk getting closer to get a better shot.

*If you allow the use of nuclear weapons, then close enough could be quite far --at the very least to disable the ship.]

[The Grue]

I'm not convinced hitting a moving space ship at light second ranges with computer support is significantly more difficult than hitting sailing ships with cannon at kilometer ranges.

It's a problem of scale. The Battle of the Denmark Strait is a good benchmark for engagement ranges of WW2 warships; the HMS Hood's opening volley was fired at a range of 24.2 kilometers, and her main battery of 15-inch guns had a muzzle velocity of 785 m/s. A straight-line firing solution would have a time-to-impact of about 30 seconds, which in reality would have been longer as the gun crews would have used a parabolic trajectory, but I can't be arsed to do 2D kinematics before supper so we'll assume 30 seconds. In 30 seconds a German battleship isn't going to be able to change course quickly enough to avoid being hit; it has to deal with liquid friction against the ocean compounded by its massive inertia to alter its course out of the Hood's firing solution. Also, consider the size of a German battleship(the Bismark-class was about 250m from bow to stern, or just over 1% the travel distance) relative to the distance we're working with. I have a rudimentary grasp of the mathematics involved in calculating how many degrees the Hood's guns would need to be misaligned i order to miss its target, but I bet there's someone reading this thread who could figure it out better than I.

For comparison, the US Navy is currently testing a railgun prototype that is expected to fire a 7-pound projectile at a muzzle velocity of 5800 m/s. Let's use that as a starting value for spaceship railguns. What's our engagement range? Since we're talking about interplanetary warfare, it would not be unreasonable to imagine, say, a secret fleet hidden on the far side of the moon(roughly 384,400 km from the earth's surface) mobilizing to attack a second fleet in geostationary orbit around the earth (roughly 35,786 km from the surface) at an estimated total range of 348,614 km. A salvo from our US Navy railgun would take 64,558 seconds, or 17 hours, to impact. Even assuming space battleships would be three times the size of the Bismarck, not unreasonable as space warships would have to pretty big for a variety of reasons, gives us a length of 750m bow to stern, or 1/464,818 the travel distance. Try and imagine how precisely accurate you'd need to be to hit at that distance, even assuming instantaneous travel time. Now take into account that, while our space battleships have much more mass than the Bismarck, they have a (proportionally) easier time altering course as they don't have to fight friction to do so. That, and they've got seventeen hours to veer to port and light their main engines.

Now obviously that travel time is going to shrink as our fleets move closer and closer together, to the point where you're firing at ships 300 km away and hitting within 60 seconds. No trouble there. But consider that, the whole while the railgun fleet is firing ineffectually at the fleet inbound from the moon, the moonfleet is lobbing guided, self-propelled missiles that can correct for their targets' manoeuvres and course changes. Which fleet do you think is going to be in better shape by the time they're in effective railgun range?

[Knaight]

I'm not convinced hitting a moving space ship at light second ranges with computer support is significantly more difficult than hitting sailing ships with cannon at kilometer ranges. Both move in three dimensions but the space ship is actually more predictable. It's not getting tossed by the sea and has detectable exhaust which may be used to extrapolate directions. Besides, inertia still matters at macro scales (unless we're speculating beyond anything known) and it takes time to move. One second won't get you far.

The space ship is more predictable, but the margin for error in aiming is far, far less. I've got numbers above, which can be easily extrapolated downward for guns that aren't a kilometer long. At 10 meters, you've got all of 1.9mm variation in the location of the end of the barrel before you miss a circular cross section a kilometer in radius. Dodging isn't a problem at light second ranges unless very tiny objects are being targeted, missing is.

As for very tiny objects - a 1 meter long gun firing at a 1 meter circular cross section at 1 light second with a stationary back can move .19 nm before missing entirely. That's 190 picometers, which is relatively close to the radius of 1 iron atom (60-140 picometers depending on bonding). Tiny objects at 1 light second aren't going to need to dodge lasers, and aren't going to need to dodge projectiles that aren't able to change direction at a light second, as hitting them is basically out of the question.

In short, the level of precision needed is significantly higher in space. Even if the computer can perfectly calculate what it needs to do, doing it is going to be difficult due to the minute variations in angle it takes to completely miss.

[Raum]

I understand what you're saying...and doubt it will be a problem in this (admittedly mythical) future. We're already manipulating single atoms, creating machines built from atoms, have solid state lasers, and NASA's ATP project is working on reducing aiming errors to sub-microradian levels.

Basically, I don't think a future with any significant space warfare will include lasers which need to be aimed mechanically. I could be wrong...but we're already moving down the road to get us there.

Edit: ATP = Acquisition, Tracking, and Pointing

[Incanur]

X-ray lasers have the theoretical potential to be unstoppable death rays of stupendous range. That's the extreme end, but - barring some revolution in armor technology - lasers should dominate space combat if and when the species ever reaches such a point. Missiles are just too slow to complete with even moderately effective light-speed weapons.

[The Grue]

Same problem as with the railguns. Accuracy, distance, course corrections, etc.

[mcv]

My apologies for entering this discussion so late. I don't check it every day or even week, but I find this an interesting discussion.

It also misses the more fundamental point which is that arms and legs are harder targets than torso and head. They're smaller, faster moving, and, particularly for legs, often hard to strike at without leaving yourself hideously vulnerable.

At least from my own sparring experience, I much more frequently take hits to the chest or upper thighs - areas covered by a chain shirt, than lower legs and arms put together. Most sparring rules disallow headshots, but this would only decrease the proportion of arm and lower leg hits, not increase them.

All fight manuals with which I'm familiar (admittedly a small number) also mostly focus on attacks to face and upper torso. Strikes to the arms do happen, but they tend to be the endstage of very particular chains of attacks and counters, not primary targets.

I'm very interested in what kind of weapon you spar with. In longsword fighting, hands and arms are easily the most likely targets. After the obvious fencing mask, gloves are the first protection that people invest in. Much, much more vital than a body protector, though admittedly that's also because hits on the hands and arms tend to be more crippling than body hits with "safe" weapons (we use nylon for low-level sparring; people are quite a bit more heavily armoured when sparring with steel).

Are you familiar with buckler fighting? The entire purpose of a buckler is to protect your sword hand. That's the part of you that's closest to the enemy, and therefore the most vulnerable. A lot of fighting manuals show images of hands getting cut off.

Knees are also a surprisingly good target. Perhaps easier against relatively inexperienced fighters, though. I've noticed that when people retreat after an exchange, a quick lunge for their knees is very often successful.

The main reason why limbs and joints are often less armoured, is because it's incredibly hard to armour them well without losing mobility. Joints need to move. Weight on your legs slows you down. You don't need to be terribly strong to wear metal armour on your body, but metal armour on your arms is a very different story, I imagine.

Mind you, it also depends a lot on the kind of weapon you're using. Against thrusts (spears especially), I imagine the torso is by far the easiest target. Swinging weapons like words are quite effective against limbs, however. I can imagine a short sword won't have the reach to attack the legs, but hands and arms will always be a target.

The arms are only an easy target if for some reason your enemy is stupid and holds them out without putting their weapon on line to attack you.

On the contrary. If you attack and your opponent parries badly, it's very easy to accidentally hit them on the hand, even without trying. There are a lot of textbook attacks that specifically target the wrists or arms; abschnitts, for example. If you attack, you cannot help but move your arms towards your opponent. If he manages to avoid your attack, your arms will be a very likely target.

Legs below the midthigh or so simply aren't good targets, you have to be too close in order to effectively attack them, and doing so forces your weapon down, leaving you open on all high lines for a most likely faster counter attack.

The time to attack the legs is when your opponent is open. You rarely attack them as a first attack (though it's always possible that someone leaves them open, of course), but after an exchange, it's not at all unusual that he retreats with a high guard and a quick lunge for the knees (perhaps easier because he's moving backwards?) can score an easy hit. Especially effective if you happen to have long arms and legs (as I happen to have, but another, far better long limbed fighter in my group also uses that attack a lot).

The head is easy though, as is the upper chest and even the abdomen isn't prohibitively low. It's quite possible to launch an attack at these regions without leaving all your lines open or requiring a ridiculously short measure, and they're easier to hit than other body parts simply by virtue of being larger and/or harder to rapidly move.

I'm not sure, but I think a weight-bearing leg is actually harder to move than a torso.

[mcv]

now to be honest i mostly studied the german tradition. so lets try this out. i start in vom tag. which guard do you take and how would you attack me? i dare you to go for my legs. if you do geometry is on my side and you open your self up to a head shot. guess which one if fatal.

I'm no expert, but an Unterhau followed by a hanging guard doesn't sound unreasonable against that. And Unterhau could just as easily hit your leg as your torso.

In fact, my favourite defense against an Unterhau (or maybe I should say: the only defense I know), is to stab him in the thigh from an Ochs. I believe that's even considered an unofficial Meisterhau, but don't pin me down on that.

although from my understanding in europe larps are held in much higher regard then here in the states.

Are they? My instructor calls them strap-on dildos.

[Galloglaich]

You can defend against an unterhau aimed at your lower legs by making a sheitelhau, an unterhau aimed at your thighs or waist by making a pflug absetsen.

I agree with the general perception that people don't hit the legs that much with longswords, this is why you often see people fighting without much lower-leg protection. I don't even usually wear knee pads. That said, there is one common way that people do get the lower-legs from the onset which is a one-handed sling cut. You actually see this a lot in tournaments.

I was in a match with one guy in my pool fights at Fechtschule America this last March and got him 4 or 5 times that way. It's a risk because there is an effective counter (take one step back and sheitelhau) but the leg attack works if the other guy is concentrating too much on an attack on his upper openings and telegraphs this. People in tournaments often get nervous and make this mistake, so they are vulnerable to the attack. Of course you also have to be careful not to telegraph that you are going to make the cut, the same guy jumped over one of my cuts and cut me in mid-air one time!

And with other weapons like sword and buckler, rapier, montante you do see a lot more leg cuts.

Keep in mind also, while the German (esp. I.33) sword and buckler does use the buckler primarily to protect the sword hand, in the Bolognese school it's different, they aren't used together so much.



I agree with you though that wearing leg armor slows you down, it seems to be the first thing that gets dropped in almost any era. Late medieval infantry usually wore 'half armor' which only covered the upper body and the arms. As well as a helmet of course.

G

[Fhaolan]

Are they? My instructor calls them strap-on dildos.

Be careful if a fighting instructor disrespects other people and their skills, no matter what those skills are. The instructor may be very good at their own skills, and even about teaching those skills to others, but disrespect can be taught as well and is something that is dangerous to pass on.

Disrespect breeds contempt, contempt breeds carelessness, and carelessness in combat will get you killed. Or defeated, in sparring/contests.

History is rife with examples of people who were so secure in their superiority that they stopped paying attention and got themselves killed because of it. Instructors should be careful about fostering that attitude, even accidentally.

[Galloglaich]

Fair point but... come on. LARP?



It's fun I'm sure, but I don't think it's even meant to be anything like 'real' combat or martial arts.

Besides, I'm not sure if it's the same group MCV trains with but I know a HEMA instructor in Holland, and he's a guy who can back up a statement like that. Even though he does look a little like techno-viking...

G

[Lapak]

As for very tiny objects - a 1 meter long gun firing at a 1 meter circular cross section at 1 light second with a stationary back can move .19 nm before missing entirely. That's 190 picometers, which is relatively close to the radius of 1 iron atom (60-140 picometers depending on bonding). Tiny objects at 1 light second aren't going to need to dodge lasers, and aren't going to need to dodge projectiles that aren't able to change direction at a light second, as hitting them is basically out of the question.

This implies that the best solution might be missile-mounted lasers. I fire a small, single-shot weapons platform at the enemy ship. Being massively smaller and more maneuverable allows it to get into a range where the enemy ship still can't effectively target it, but it can target the enemy ship. Best of both worlds!

[mcv]

Besides, I'm not sure if it's the same group MCV trains with but I know a HEMA instructor in Holland, and he's a guy who can back up a statement like that. Even though he does look a little like techno-viking...

That sounds like Lopes alright. He's a bit of a tough/trash talker, but he really knows a lot.

[Spiryt]

If someone would want to actually claim/whatever that he will learn/discover anything about actual fighting or stuff from LARP then he's silly indeed, but as far as LARPs as a whole go, can't really find a reason to bash it....

I've never LARP-ed, but still.

[mcv]

You can defend against an unterhau aimed at your lower legs by making a sheitelhau,

I admit I'm not too experienced with the sheitelhau yet, but wouldn't that make you vulnerable to an abschnitt? Not that anyone every actually does those, so maybe I should give it a try.

an unterhau aimed at your thighs or waist by making a pflug absetsen.

I'm having trouble picturing this, but I'll give it a try.

Keep in mind also, while the German (esp. I.33) sword and buckler does use the buckler primarily to protect the sword hand, in the Bolognese school it's different, they aren't used together so much.

I believe you. My experience with sword and buckler is limited to one (weekend long) I.33 workshop.

[mcv]

If someone would want to actually claim/whatever that he will learn/discover anything about actual fighting or stuff from LARP then he's silly indeed, but as far as LARPs as a whole go, can't really find a reason to bash it....

I've never LARP-ed, but still.

I've LARPed once, long ago. Wouldn't mind doing it more often if I had the time. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with sword fighting.