Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Norsesmithy]

In case of 'full scale' rifles, like the ones used commonly in the first half of 20th century, bullets were very lethal on very long ranges, often exceeding one kilometer easily.

Because no-one, let alone ordinary soldier can generally hit anything from much shorter distances anyway, basic infantry weapons became generally less powerful, then came the miniaturization of bullets caliber/general size and so on.

In pistols lethal distance is much shorter, obviosuly, but they certainly can still hurt.

Here I could find only 100 yards data, but on those yards 9mm appears to be deadly enough.

I had a question about guns I wanted to ask. I know that most have a range outside which they are not very accurate, but outside THAT range, at what distance does say, a handgun bullet have to travel before it is no longer capable of causing a lethal hit on an unarmored target?

Earlier this summer, a private citizen with a permit to carry saved a police officer who was ambushed and pinned down by killing a man at 165 yards with his .357 Magnum revolver in Brown County Texas. A google search pulls up some Youtube hits (local news interviews with the county sheriff and the shooter), but I can no longer find the print news links that were being passed around.

It took him 5 shots, but I suspect most of that was figuring the windage.

For what it's worth, a .45 acp is going to be carrying similar energy at that range (due to better ballistic properties of the larger bullet), though it would require a bunch more elevation than the faster, lighter, .357. 9mm would be less potent at that range, but still more potent than light weight cartridges like .25 ACP. In other words, I'm not going to volunteer to be the backstop.

[Roxxy]

Thats the thing though, I dont want to know how far a bullet can theoretically travel before it stops moving, I wanted to know at what distance say, a 9 mm can go and still kill someone. When will it no longer have enough velocity to penetrate several inches into human flesh and puncture an organ?

That's difficult to say, because there are so many ways to kill someone. You can tear through a couple inches of flesh and an organ, but you could also cause a fatal tear to a blood vessel with a relatively shallow wound, which requires less velocity. I'm also not sure as to whether or not the maximum lethal range of a 9mm has been put to the test or not.

[Brother Oni]

About the only figure I can find is that '60 foot pounds' is considered 'disabling', which is an infuriatingly vague term.
60 ft lb is about 81 joules and assuming the weight of a 9mm round is ~7.5g, looking at an online calculator I get a value of ~147m/s to hit that 81J mark.

Unfortunately I don't understand the drag equation well enough to calculate the distance a round has travelled before it slows down to 147m/s (that 9mm Luger has an initial velocity of ~344 m/s), so someone better at it than I am will have to calculate it.

I'm a biochemist, not a physicist, dammit!

Edit: Looking up some more references, it's more complicated than it looks since there's some debate about the usefulness of energy to describe lethality.

As MacAilbert said, location is incredibly important. I've seen values as low as 5J to cause death (BB gun at point blank range in the eye, penetrating into the cranial cavity) all the way up to 100J (this was regarded as the bare minimum for big game like deer though and is probably overkill for a human).

One possibly apocryphal anecdote I read, was that one bloke boasted he could catch a .22 round at 200 yards with nothing more than a leather glove.
It went through the glove and his hand.

[Galloglaich]

It's interesting how much less energy arrows and things like swords and knives actually need to hurt targets and penetrate armor than bullets do. Bullets require an enormous amount of energy, it makes you think there could be a lot of room to develop better armor-piercing rounds (though even basic steel core armor piercing rounds are surprisingly effective)

G

[Spiryt]

It generally depends on 'armor', 'penetrate' and all of that, because different object will interfere differently.

It's pretty easy to pierce sandbag with piece of stiff wire, while a lot of bullets will get stopped hopelessly, and it naturally doesn't mean that piece of wire is good as a missile or weapon of any kind.

As far as I recall, solid surfaces of iron or steel (breastplates, plates, scale, lames etc.) generally require a lot of energy to breach trough, hardness, sectional density, cross section, momentum alone won't do if there's not enough 'punch' there.

So firearms had indeed opened new possibilities.

[Brother Oni]

It's interesting how much less energy arrows and things like swords and knives actually need to hurt targets and penetrate armor than bullets do. Bullets require an enormous amount of energy, it makes you think there could be a lot of room to develop better armor-piercing rounds (though even basic steel core armor piercing rounds are surprisingly effective)

If I were to hazard a guess, it may be a direct consequence of increasing range. You have to put more power into the round to make it go further and subsequently makes the round more 'fragile'.

Mythbusters did a very good investigation on the penetration of bullets into water and all the hypersonic velocity weapons they used pretty much disintegrated after only a very short distance - even a .50 Barrett did fairly poorly.
The slower, lower energy weapons penetrated much better.

All this adds to the side of the argument that energy is a poor indicator of lethality (I think the main alternative is penetration markers), although it's still apparently used for some things (shrapnel lethality and other fragmentation weapons).

I'm wondering if it's not cost effective or too technologically difficult to improve the armour penetrating abilities of small arms as you've suggested. The technology exists - take a look at all the flavours of tank shells - but I suspect scaling it down just isn't worthwhile.

[Traab]

If I were to hazard a guess, it may be a direct consequence of increasing range. You have to put more power into the round to make it go further and subsequently makes the round more 'fragile'.

Mythbusters did a very good investigation on the penetration of bullets into water and all the hypersonic velocity weapons they used pretty much disintegrated after only a very short distance - even a .50 Barrett did fairly poorly.
The slower, lower energy weapons penetrated much better.

All this adds to the side of the argument that energy is a poor indicator of lethality (I think the main alternative is penetration markers), although it's still apparently used for some things (shrapnel lethality and other fragmentation weapons).

I'm wondering if it's not cost effective or too technologically difficult to improve the armour penetrating abilities of small arms as you've suggested. The technology exists - take a look at all the flavours of tank shells - but I suspect scaling it down just isn't worthwhile.

"Fairly" poorly? You could have been hanging out underwater using a straw to breathe and there is a good chance a .50 cal shot at you from a distance of 5 feet would MISS because the bullet practically explodes on impact sending shrapnel off in every other direction but straight ahead. Honestly, a couple feet of water might as well be a bulletproof jacket against any high powered weapons. That was one of the coolest episodes even if the punchline was telegraphed. There was no way in HELL they would have been allowed to shoot those guns into a swimming pool if they didnt already know the bullets would do either jack, or squat. But just to see how ineffective guns are when shot into water? Very cool.

[Spiryt]

All this adds to the side of the argument that energy is a poor indicator of lethality (I think the main alternative is penetration markers), although it's still apparently used for some things (shrapnel lethality and other fragmentation weapons).

.

What actually happens with energy is obviously times more important, but if you know what can happen, the more is generally better - those bullets 'disintegrate' or generally get swayed off course very violently, because they have pretty obscene velocity and energy. Thus very violent effect of rapid change of medium of motion.

From very 'thin' air, to rather dense water.

And because difference between air and human body is rather similar, effects of hitting the flesh are very violent as well.

[fusilier]

It's interesting how much less energy arrows and things like swords and knives actually need to hurt targets and penetrate armor than bullets do. Bullets require an enormous amount of energy, it makes you think there could be a lot of room to develop better armor-piercing rounds (though even basic steel core armor piercing rounds are surprisingly effective)

G

There's been discussions about this before, by people who are far more knowledgeable about the physics involved than I, but I seem to remember that perhaps the problem is that "energy" isn't what performs armor penetration, and perhaps not even damage (that would be energy transfer?), it's merely a convenient, and perhaps overused, descriptor.

I remember looking at some stats on armor piercing small arms ammo, and some of the bullets weighed the same, or even less, than normal "ball" ammo and had about the same muzzle-velocity. The difference was the material, typically harder, so it would deform less when striking something. Armor penetrating ammo, often does little damage to whatever is behind the armor (barring explosives, and weird things like depleted uranium).

[Telok]

(barring explosives, and weird fun things like depleted uranium).

Fixed that for ya.

[Brother Oni]

"Fairly" poorly? You could have been hanging out underwater using a straw to breathe and there is a good chance a .50 cal shot at you from a distance of 5 feet would MISS because the bullet practically explodes on impact sending shrapnel off in every other direction but straight aheadl.

I'm British. I'm prone to understatement.

[huttj509]

There's been discussions about this before, by people who are far more knowledgeable about the physics involved than I, but I seem to remember that perhaps the problem is that "energy" isn't what performs armor penetration, and perhaps not even damage (that would be energy transfer?), it's merely a convenient, and perhaps overused, descriptor.

I remember looking at some stats on armor piercing small arms ammo, and some of the bullets weighed the same, or even less, than normal "ball" ammo and had about the same muzzle-velocity. The difference was the material, typically harder, so it would deform less when striking something. Armor penetrating ammo, often does little damage to whatever is behind the armor (barring explosives, and weird things like depleted uranium).

Material and shape of the projectile would both matter.

If you have 2 projectiles of the same shape and material, energy can provide an approximate comparison. In general, something moving faster will do more damage, and something bigger will do more damage on impact.

As an example of how material matters, picture a baseball and a crumpled ball of paper. The paper will be affected more by air resistance, it will deform more on impact, and it's easy to see that even if they had the same KE (really fast paper wad throw), you'd need to look at various additional effects.

As to shape, well, sharp knife vs. blunt knife. Same material, same speed, but they cut differently. Depending on what you're going for, you might not want the equivalent of a clean cut (a thin needle going straight through wouldn't do much collateral internal damage, while something that gets deflected inside the target and stays in could do much more secondary damage).

[genderlich]

My gaming group is trying to develop our campaign setting to a more detailed level. There's this desert region that's a fusion of ancient Egyptian, North African, and Arab cultures. So we're trying to figure out more specifically what kinds of weapons and armor would be used.

Things like spears, axes, bows, etc. are common to all cultures. We think the Khopesh and Scimitar would be common weapons. We're also really not sure about what kinds of armor would be used - maybe light metal mail due to the desert heat? We've done some basic research, but anything helps. What can you think of to give this area a more unique and realistic style?

[Storm Bringer]

well, Arab heavy cavalry of the crusades wore (chain)mail armour as heavy as the crusaders of the same time, but it looks like they never really transitioned to full plate armour, rather they stayed with mail and splint armours, Here is a picture of a 16th century ottoman Sipahi armour, which is dated as "~1550", and is so roughly comtemptory with Queen Eliizibeth I.

I could have sworn i;ve seen some half-plate style armours in osprey books about the Moors and the conquest of the kingdom of Granada, but can't find any online

[Matthew]

You can pretty much go with whatever sort of sword you like; there is nothing about the desert that makes the scimitar or khopesh better or worse suited to it. That said, the straight/curved blade and their use from horseback is an old chestnut.

[Spiryt]

"Light armor" due to heat is pretty standard assumption, but that being said, it never really appeared to work that way, in the era of Crusades, for most common example.

Like mentioned, Egyptian, Arabian etc. cavalry regularly wore scale, lammelar and similar small plates armors, which are both solid iron surface and heavy.

Heat is definitely problem if one's wearing metal armor, but it doesn't seem that additional weight or lack of such mattered that much...

Other than the fact that armor was always as light as one could make it, obviously.

[Galloglaich]

As is so often the case with these things, you might find that anything based on reality is too far off from your expectations to be satisfying.

But that said...





The most common type of armor used in the Middle East was called a Jazeraint or a Khazaghand or Kazaghand. This was a combination of mail and textile armor, where a mail coat is sandwiched inside two layers of a silk garment stuffed with horse hair or rabbit fur.





It wasn't necessarily that light, though thanks to using silk instead of linen or fustian, the textile part was lighter than the European equivalent.

Another common type of armor in the Middle East which also doesn't really exist (as such) in RPGs is the Yushman or Bakhterets, sometimes referred to as 'mail and plate' armor by modern academics. This actually covers a wide range of specific subtypes but incluedes the Ottoman armor linked above.




I don't think this is equivalent to 'splint mail' because it's certainly not super bulky, maybe closer to 'banded mail' though for me, that isn't really a fit either.

As others mentioned, Islamic swords were typically strait until the 15th Century, like these. Similar to European swords but with a bit less emphasis on the pommel and the guard.

Spoiler

Show

The Khopesh had been gone for thousands of years and the term 'scimetar' doesn't really have any actual meaning.

Sabers were gradually introduced by the Mongols but didn't become really popular until the 16th Century, when the idea of the crescent shaped saber became associated in the minds of both the Muslim and the Christian world, with Islam. The Arab saber is called a 'saif'.

The Turks used sabers earlier, being closer to the steppe, originally it was basically the Chinese / Mongol Dao type though by the 14th Century they had begun to perfect their own designs. One prominent type was the famous Kilij, a brutal cutting weapon. Like all sabers, the Kilij was mostly used by cavalry. The Ottoman kilij was the inspiration for a type of Hungarian saber and via Hungary, a whole family of European sabers which remained in use through the 19th Century.

Ottoman infantry generally preferred inward curving swords, like the infamous Yatagan. These operate on the same principle as a Gurkha Kurkri knife or a Greek Kopis. Really brutal weapons.



The Persians had their own version of the saber, the Shamshir, as well as a whole series of other weapons.

Another interesting thing about the Middle East is their use of fire weapons, ranging from simple molatov cocktail type firebombs to much more sophisticated bombs and fire-lances, leading eventually to guns which were first introduced by the Mongols in the 13th Century.

Here is a description of a fire weapon in use during the Crusades, from Usamah Ibn Munqidh:

"One of the Turks climbed, under our very eyes, and started walking towards the tower, in the face of death, until he approached the tower and hurles a bottle of naptha on those who were on top of it. The naptha flashed like a meteor falling upon those hard stones, while the men who were there threw themselves on the ground for fear of being burnt. The Turk then came back to us."


One of the best accounts you'll ever find of the Arab point of view on the Crusades is from a guy called Usama ibn Munqidh, who was an arab equivalent of a knight, and fought the Crusaders (and was also sometimes allied with some of them). His memoir is full of excellent (and surprising) details about the world at that time and place, rich fodder for Campaigns I would think.

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

Nice description of the effects of a sword cut:

"There was in my service a man named Nuamayr al-'Allaruzi. He was a footman, brave and strong. With a band of men from Shayzar, he set out to al-Ruj to attack the Franks. When still in our territory, they came across a caravan of the Franks hiding in a cavern, and each one began to say to the other, "Who should go in against them?" "I," said Nuuamyr. And as he said it, he went in against them. As he entered, one of them came to recieve him, but Numayr stabbed him immediately with the dagger, overthrew him and knelt upon him to slay him. Behind the Frank stood another one with a sword in his hand and he struck Numayr. The latter had on his back a knapsack containing bread, which protected him. Having killed the man under him, Numayr now turned to the man with the sword, intent upon attacking him. The Frank immediately struck him with the sword on the side of his face and cut through his eyebrow, eyelid, cheeck, nose and upper lip, making the whole side of his face hang down his chest. Numayr went out of the cavern to his companions, who bandaged his wound and brought him back during a cold rainy night. He arrived in Shayzar in that condition. there his face was stitched and his cut was treated until he was healed and returned to his former conidtion, with the exception of his eye was lost for good."

and on the effectiveness of 'double mail' armor:

"Another Turk now climbed and started walking on the same wall between the two bastions. He was carrying his sword and shield. There came out to meet him from the tower, at the door of which stood a knight, a Frank wearing double-linked mail and carrying a spear in his hand, but not eqquipped with a shield. The Turk, sword in hand, encountered him. The Frank smote him with the spear, but the Turk warded off the point of the spear with his shield and, notwithstanding the spear, advanced towards the frank. The latter took to flight and turned his back, leaning forward, like one who wanted to kneel, in order to protect hiss head. The urk dealt him a number of blows which had no effect whatsoever, and went on walking until he entered the tower."

There are also, of course, a number of those Osprey books on Middle Eastern warriors which would probably be of some use.

G

[Yora]

The important trait of silk is not its low weight but its very high resistance to tearing. Arrows have a very hard time to cut through the fibers and the silk covering the arrowhead significantly reduces penetration. It works similar to kevlar.

[Galloglaich]

I said it was lighter because they seem to use fewer or thinner layers of the silk, because those Kazaghand usually seem to be thinner than the equivalent aketon and so on.

G

[Brother Oni]

I remember the Mongols wearing silk undershirts for this very reason, though it wasn't to stop the arrow penetrating the body, it was to enable easy extraction of the arrow (broadhead arrows did most of their damage trying to pull the things out) simply by gathering the shirt around the wound and pulling carefully.

[Galloglaich]

Detail of a cool Muslim (I think Persian?) mail and plate armor which was on display at the Higgins Armoury in Massachutsess.

Spoiler

Show

G

[eulmanis12]

I'm running a game that takes place in the 1700's, does anyone know where I can find a few Prussian infantry marches? Youtube was no help and wikipedia keeps giving me WWII stuff.

[Storm Bringer]

any of these any good?



I particuarlly like this offering, which is full of true, honest to god soldiers gallows humour ("goodbye now, luise, wipe your tear/ its not like every ball hits!/ if every ball hits it's Man/ How would the kings get their soliders then?")

[AMX]

I'm running a game that takes place in the 1700's, does anyone know where I can find a few Prussian infantry marches? Youtube was no help and wikipedia keeps giving me WWII stuff.

I found something that seems appropriate on Amazon Germany

[Adlan]

I remember the Mongols wearing silk undershirts for this very reason, though it wasn't to stop the arrow penetrating the body, it was to enable easy extraction of the arrow (broadhead arrows did most of their damage trying to pull the things out) simply by gathering the shirt around the wound and pulling carefully.

That would imply the shirt wasn't cut.

I understood the preference for silk was it didn't leave so many fibres in a wound.

[fusilier]

I'm running a game that takes place in the 1700's, does anyone know where I can find a few Prussian infantry marches? Youtube was no help and wikipedia keeps giving me WWII stuff.

Look for fife and drum corps. Most of them are Revolutionary War or Civil War era, but they used older tunes, and I'm pretty sure some of them are Prussian. Although you will have to do some research into the history of individual tunes.

[TimeWizard]

Detail of a cool Muslim (I think Persian?) mail and plate armor which was on display at the Higgins Armoury in Massachutsess.

The great state of Massachusetts is home to many museums and universities.

[awa]

i had always heard that human skin would break before the silk shirt and that's why it worked

[Caustic Soda]

I've read that peltasts were so called because they supposedly had had crescent-shaped shields, as opposed to simply round shields. The Wikipedia page has two period depictions of such shields, but as usual the page is lacking in detail, and I have no idea if the soruces there are credible. Would anyone here know if that idea is supported by historical finds, and/or what kind of purpose it would serve to have a shield with such a form?

edit: spelling

[Galloglaich]

I've read that peltasts were so called because they supposedly had had crescent-shaped shields, as opposed to simply round shields. The Wikipedia page has two period depictions of such shields, but as usual the page is lacking in detail, and I have no idea if the soruces there are credible. Would anyone here know if that idea is supported by historical finds, and/or what kind of purpose it would serve to have a shield with such a form?

edit: spelling

I think the wiki is legit in that pelta is believed to be as depicted, but this is derived from literary sources and images on vases and so on, not archeological finds. Organic matter rarely lasts more than a few hundred years.



Iron either, for that matter, which is why the number of surviving iron or steel swords drops off precipitously before 1500 AD. Bronze, of course, does a bit better.

G