Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Deffers]

I'd think a bigger issue, assuming you get the weight down to something reasonable, is that chainsaws pull. All those teeth biting into whatever you're cutting want to yank the sucker right out of your hands. That's why people tend to jam the body of the saw right up against the log, so they don't have to pull the thing back manually. Obviously you can't do that when trying to slash somebody with one, so it's definitely something to keep in mind.

The pull of the teeth is also why when a person uses a chainsaw, they should always try to keep themselves out of the line of the blade. They can snag, and when they snag, they can kick back far too hard and fast for a person to stop. In a combat application, I'd be extremely worried about this. You don't want to chainsaw thwack somebody in armor, have the teeth jam on a pauldron, and get a face full of blade.

What I'm saying here is that if there were ever a weapon that deserved critical fumble rules, it's the chainsaw.

Huh. OK. So would there be any way to reduce that pull?

[warty goblin]

Huh. OK. So would there be any way to reduce that pull?

Not really, it's pretty much how a chainsaw works. All saws work by dragging the points of the teeth across the cutting medium, so they dig in and tear off bits of material. At a macro level this is quite distinct from a knife or sword, which doesn't remove material, just separates it. At a micro level of course a sawblade is just a lot of very small knives making lots of very small cuts. The 'pull' you feel operating a chainsaw is Newton's third law applying equal and opposite force to the saw away from you as the teeth move towards you.

Pretty much whenever the saw isn't powered by pure muscle, you have the potential for binding and kicking because of this. Reciprocating saws, table saws, chainsaws, anytime the teeth snag and the motor keeps trying to move the blade, you have the potential for some sort of mishap. With tablesaws you never stand behind the board, because if the blade binds it can shoot the wood backwards and seriously injure or kill the user, even though the blade is fixed. I've seen just how fast even a moderately sized tablesaw can shoot a bit of wood, and it's legitimately scary.


This is less of a risk and problem with a sharp blade, because it's less likely to bind up, but it's not like a person can afford to ignore the risks even then. Meat is much less tough than most woods though, so there could well be less of an issue with the blade seizing up when halfway through a dude. On the other hand people are considerably more likely to be armored than your average tree, and armor is a good deal harder to cut than even dry oak logs. I'd think hitting somebody in chainmail with a chainsaw would be nearly as dangerous to the operator as the target.

It's also not the case that a chainsaw makes cutting through stuff effortless. They're a lot less work than a handsaw, but you still need to put some significant pressure on the blade for them to dig in, because the action of the teeth also pushes the blade upwards and away from what you're cutting. As I said, easier than a handsaw, and certainly faster, but still a lot of work.

[Galloglaich]

Re: Dr. Williams

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=GpVbnsqAzxIC

G

[Deffers]

@Water Goblin: Huh. OK, that's good to know. Yeah, it sounds like this definitely couldn't work in the real world, at least not safely. It does sound like if someone had superhuman strength, they'd at least be able to train with working against the pull of the chainsaw in the heat of combat. For the RP, at least, that's not outlandish.

Oh well. So basically, what it comes down to is you'd need to be quite strong to wield one as a weapon and not die violently from the bigger, meaner cousin of stabbing yourself, and even then the chainsaw could still have its chain snap, right? I've heard stories of, basically, jerks putting nails into trees that were going to be cut, so that when someone chainsawed them the chain would snap and injure them. Could this actually happen?

[Brother Oni]

How about a chainsaw with two sets of teeth, which oscillate back and forth a short distance inversely, thus it would have a cutting action (like scissors) in addition to the standard tearing?

As I understand general mechanics, the motor probably wouldn't drive the chains directly, thus it'd probably be less powerful but may have reduced kickback.

Re: Dr. Williams

http://books.google.com/books/about/...d=GpVbnsqAzxIC

Excellent, thanks for that Galloglaich.

[Galloglaich]

@Water Goblin: Huh. OK, that's good to know. Yeah, it sounds like this definitely couldn't work in the real world, at least not safely. It does sound like if someone had superhuman strength, they'd at least be able to train with working against the pull of the chainsaw in the heat of combat. For the RP, at least, that's not outlandish.

Oh well. So basically, what it comes down to is you'd need to be quite strong to wield one as a weapon and not die violently from the bigger, meaner cousin of stabbing yourself, and even then the chainsaw could still have its chain snap, right? I've heard stories of, basically, jerks putting nails into trees that were going to be cut, so that when someone chainsawed them the chain would snap and injure them. Could this actually happen?

I think no matter how light you tried to make the chainsaw, and no matter how strong you were (within the realm of physics) it would be so much heavier and clumsier than a real sword, spear etc., that it would be ridiculously easy for a trained opponent to just stab you in the face or cut your hand off before you managed to cut them.

G

[cucchulainnn]

I think no matter how light you tried to make the chainsaw, and no matter how strong you were (within the realm of physics) it would be so much heavier and clumsier than a real sword, spear etc., that it would be ridiculously easy for a trained opponent to just stab you in the face or cut your hand off before you managed to cut them.

G

but, but, it worked in army of darkness. you must be mistake. if ash can do it why can't I.

[AgentPaper]

A chainsaw meant for combat would probably be a lot thinner than one made for cutting wood, and designed to slice rather than rip and tear. For example, it could have a bunch of small, curved blades that would cut any flesh they touched, but wouldn't get caught on armor or other hard bits. It would probably also use a smaller, less powerful engine, since it doesn't need to be as powerful, thus making it lighter.

Such a chainsaw would likely do great against soft targets, cutting through them like a knife through butter, but fare much worse against armor or even bone, since it's blades are designed to slide over hard surfaces rather than dig in. This does mean though that it's much less likely to snag, break the chain, and lacerate your friend 20 feet away.

[warty goblin]

@Water Goblin: Huh. OK, that's good to know. Yeah, it sounds like this definitely couldn't work in the real world, at least not safely. It does sound like if someone had superhuman strength, they'd at least be able to train with working against the pull of the chainsaw in the heat of combat. For the RP, at least, that's not outlandish.

There's also the issue of conservation of angular momentum to consider. While a chainsaw won't be nearly the worst power tool in this category*, the spinning chain will have a gyroscopic effect, which could slow down recovery from a swing in very strange ways.

Also, if somebody's strong enough to manhandle a chainsaw in combat like a sword, there's other things they could be pulling out of the toolshop I'd be a lot more worried about. The nine pound splitting maul comes to mind, to say nothing of the six foot iron prybar they could swing like a quarter-staff. Things just break when you hit them with one of those.


*For real fun with conservation of angular momentum, try a diamond edged 20" stone cutting saw. You'd better hope you've got the blade in the plane you want before you turn it on, because it's a right wrestling match to tilt the sucker once it's up to speed.

Oh well. So basically, what it comes down to is you'd need to be quite strong to wield one as a weapon and not die violently from the bigger, meaner cousin of stabbing yourself, and even then the chainsaw could still have its chain snap, right? I've heard stories of, basically, jerks putting nails into trees that were going to be cut, so that when someone chainsawed them the chain would snap and injure them. Could this actually happen?

Chain breakage is another issue, one that, thankfully, I've never actually seen. It's certainly something I was taught to worry about when learning to operate a chainsaw though - always clear the cutting area, check for any bits of metal or stone that could jam the blade, etc.

I remember our old chainsaw had a metal guard that covered the end of the blade blade specifically so that if the chain did snap, it didn't go shooting off like the Devil's own leg-mangling bolo. It's been a while since I've seen a saw with that feature, so it could be modern chains are substantially less likely to snap. Either that or people just got fed up with taking them off every time they wanted to section a tree longer than the blade. Remarkably, you will always find a tree larger than your chainsaw in my experience.

How about a chainsaw with two sets of teeth, which oscillate back and forth a short distance inversely, thus it would have a cutting action (like scissors) in addition to the standard tearing?

Then you have what amounts to a sicklebar, which also cut quite well. The problem with them is that the shake like crazy. I've used sicklebar mowers on occasion, and they'll cut through thick grass, small trees, and I'd imagine legs, etc without any trouble. What makes 'em awkward is that they vibrate so much your hands go numb. This is attached to a quite large self propelled mower mind you, so there's a lot of mass to absorb the shock between me and the blades. Something heavy and powerful enough for combat use that's hand-held would be well nigh uncontrollable.

It also increases the number of moving parts significantly, which increases the ways and chances for something to break. A chainsaw is really quite simple, and my experience is that they're the better part of indestructible because of this. You need to sharpen the blade pretty frequently, lubricate often and heavily, and the bar needs replaced every once in a great while, but that's about it until the engine craps out after a couple decades. The sicklebar needs overhauled at least a couple of times a summer, when it isn't flat-out broken because it's under so much more stress when operating. Our current model has blades screwed onto a steel bar that's maybe an inch wide and perhaps a quarter thick. We've had this snap right in half at least once I can remember. The blades themselves also break, chip and generally self-destruct fairly frequently, and they're pretty large, sturdy bits of steel. This is just running through grass, scrub and the occasional unanticipated bit of turf or chicken wire mind. Running one into a bit of actually thick high quality metal makes me shudder to contemplate.

As I understand general mechanics, the motor probably wouldn't drive the chains directly, thus it'd probably be less powerful but may have reduced kickback.

I'd think the kickback could well be harder to deal with, since now you don't even know which direction it's going to act in. With a standard chainsaw at least I know it's going to pull away and up, with this it could just as well throw itself backwards into me.

I think no matter how light you tried to make the chainsaw, and no matter how strong you were (within the realm of physics) it would be so much heavier and clumsier than a real sword, spear etc., that it would be ridiculously easy for a trained opponent to just stab you in the face or cut your hand off before you managed to cut them.
G

On the upside for Mr. Chainsaw, at least it'd be scary as hell to fight against. I mean I know if I had a sword or a spear any sort of weapon-to-weapon contact would be something I'd avoid like the plague. My blade would get thrown somehow and somewhere, but neither of us would be able to predict or control where.


Also this appears to be the real world weapons, armor and power tool thread. We could talk about cutting torches next.

[Deffers]

Yeah, my buddy's character is basically Mr. Scary. Doesn't surprise me that's the one thing a fighting chainsaw would be excellent at.

What if you put it on a stick, like some horrible chain-spear? Would that be easier to handle?

And power tools are totally real world weapons. It's a modern spin on turning your plough into a sword. A horrible, crappy sword that is every bit as likely to kill you as anyone else.

[AgentPaper]

What if you put it on a stick, like some horrible chain-spear? Would that be easier to handle?

Putting it on a stick would make it even more difficult to handle, since it still has all the same problems, except now you have much less leverage and have to worry about the stick wobbling around and not going exactly where you want it to. There's a reason that the blades of most polearm weapons are smaller than their corresponding, shorter-hafted counterparts.

[warty goblin]

A chainsaw meant for combat would probably be a lot thinner than one made for cutting wood, and designed to slice rather than rip and tear. For example, it could have a bunch of small, curved blades that would cut any flesh they touched, but wouldn't get caught on armor or other hard bits. It would probably also use a smaller, less powerful engine, since it doesn't need to be as powerful, thus making it lighter.

Such a chainsaw would likely do great against soft targets, cutting through them like a knife through butter, but fare much worse against armor or even bone, since it's blades are designed to slide over hard surfaces rather than dig in. This does mean though that it's much less likely to snag, break the chain, and lacerate your friend 20 feet away.

Chainsaws already slice - try running one through a bit of wood with the grain parallel to the blade. You don't get sawdust, you get lots of long, thin ribbons of wood. You only get sawdust when cutting cross-grain because the wood is weak in that direction, and the fibers break apart.

The teeth are those slanted flat chiselish bits on the top of the chain in the picture. They are basically little right angles sticking out of the chain, and are sharp on both sides All those spiky things on the bottom are gear teeth, which is what allows the engine to power the chain, and keeps said chain from sliding off the bar. The little pointy things on top act to limit the cut depth so the saw doesn't dig in too deep and bind, but they aren't sharp and don't cut.

The way a chainsaw cuts is by dragging the sharp face of those teeth along the surface. When pressed down by the operator, the angle of the blade causes it to bite, and lift a bit of material off as the chain moves. It's essentially a belt of chisels or knives that lift little pieces of the material as they pass across it. That picture doesn't really show it very well, but the teeth usually have somewhat curved edges as well.

Putting it on a stick would make it even more difficult to handle, since it still has all the same problems, except now you have much less leverage and have to worry about the stick wobbling around and not going exactly where you want it to. There's a reason that the blades of most polearm weapons are smaller than their corresponding, shorter-hafted counterparts.

Really, the only sensible thing to do is the chainsaw gauntlet. It solves most of the leverage issues, the risk of removing your own face is way lower, and you're punching people with a chainsaw. How much more could a person possibly want?

[Brother Oni]

Also this appears to be the real world weapons, armor and power tool thread. We could talk about cutting torches next.

Speaking of cutting torches, the US Navy put this video out today that may interest some people: Laser Weapon System.

Really, the only sensible thing to do is the chainsaw gauntlet. It solves most of the leverage issues, the risk of removing your own face is way lower, and you're punching people with a chainsaw. How much more could a person possibly want?

Wait, are you saying a 40K chainfist is actually reasonable?

[warty goblin]

Wait, are you saying a 40K chainfist is actually reasonable?

Conditioned on the vast impracticalicity of a chainsaw weapon to begin with, some sort of punching attack really seems the best way to go.

Although personally if I were designing it, I wouldn't do a single short bayonet style blade. I'd go with four short semicircular blades, with maybe a quarter inch between them. Why four? It's the smallest number that will produce a net torque and a net force of zero when all of them strike at once. Run the two on the edge upwards, and the two in the middle downwards. This reduces the chances of spraining your own wrist every time you decide somebody's insides would look better as wall paint. The half-circle design is to allow for efficient slashing attacks, as well as more linear punches. It also maximizes the amount of chain that is actively cutting in any one attack, while minimizing the depth of penetration for area of laceration. This gives a large amount of trauma while reducing the amount of leverage the saw-fist can exert on your elbow. Also I think it looks cool.

On the downside, you won't get a penetration much deeper than the depth of the blade. On the upside you just punched four deep, extremely messy gouges into somebody's torso. I suspect neither you nor they will be worried about your failure to make a hole all the way through their body. They'll be wondering exactly how fast they can lose all their blood. You will be worried about the dry-cleaning bill. Because as an added benefit of running the chains in opposite directions, this thing will spray gore literally everywhere.

[Deffers]

Well, that's way cooler than a chainsaw. OMEGA CHAINFIST, GOOOOOO

[eulmanis12]

I'd suggesst having the chains moving towards the opponent on the outside, that way a hit that wasn't perfectly flat would not yank you forwards it would instead push back, something much less likley to catch you off balance as you would alread be braced for resistive force

[Ashtagon]

Really, the only sensible thing to do is the chainsaw gauntlet. It solves most of the leverage issues, the risk of removing your own face is way lower, and you're punching people with a chainsaw. How much more could a person possibly want?

A nose that isn't itchy?

[warty goblin]

A nose that isn't itchy?

With the Mk. 1 QuadRipper Chainsaw Gauntlet (Now Available in Black!) you never have to worry about your itchy nose again!

[Galloglaich]

how about a vibrating sword or spear-blade like the electric carving knife they use to cut up a turkey?

G

[Rhynn]

how about a vibrating sword or spear-blade like the electric carving knife they use to cut up a turkey?

G

Now I am curious - are vibro-blades feasible? They're a sci-fi staple (well, a certain kind of sci-fi, anyway)...

[eulmanis12]

Now I am curious - are vibro-blades feasible? They're a sci-fi staple (well, a certain kind of sci-fi, anyway)...

making a blade that vibrates isn't that hard, wielding it on the other hand could get difficult, and its effects could get rather unpredictable as different materials respond differently to it.

however, the guns of the future will continue to do what the guns of the past and present have done, render the sword (of any kind) useless on the battlefield

[Galloglaich]

Food for thought

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NE35rm-UY4

G

[Spiryt]

I'm not sure what's this video point to be sure, TBH.

That if some crazy piece of..... attacks you with a knife out of sudden, you're screwed at best, and often dead?

Well, that's kinda given.

Myth about only 'idiots grabbing you while they stab' was kinda weird indeed, after all, one can control what he grabs. To stab and prevent from running away.


As far as guns go, I remember some police research, with a lot of officers playing 'roles' of paroling guys with guns with blanks/lasers/can't remember. white clothes, and other played rampaging knife hobos, using red dye sharpies.

Analysis showed that distance, from which knife guy had to attack from, to give gunner solid chance to notice, evaluate the danger, and then grab a gun, aim and eliminate threat was disturbingly high.

Maybe I will find it later.

[Straybow]

I'd agree with AgentPaper. Instead of the perpendicular chisel-type blades use curved, in-plane slicing teeth. And with eulmanis12, running it backwards compared to a normal chainsaw would probably help prevent snags pulling the weapon from your grip.

I'd add that the saw could be made like a backsword, with the chain guide taller than the blade teeth on the back side. It would still be rather heavy unless made quite short, and way too dangerous to use one-handed, IMO.

[Straybow]

There's a Tony Hillerman character who carries a knife, and when the other policeman questions him about it he cites a figure of 21' being the range from which a knife-wielder can get to you before you can draw and fire your holstered gun.

[AgentPaper]

Note that modifying the chainsaw in this way (removing the chisel blades, reversing the direction) would make it much worse at it's job of sawing through things, since that's why normal chainsaws have those features in the first place. You almost certainly wouldn't be able to cut through wood with a chainsaw like that, and metal armor would be just as much a hindrance as with a normal sword, if not more so due to the lack of a tip and the tendency to push itself away from the armor instead of digging in.

Which means it's worse than a sword at hurting people, and worse than a saw at sawing things, making it an eminently useless item, but if you really did need to fight someone using a chainsaw (and simply smacking them over the head with the engine doesn't count), that's about the only reasonable way to do it.

[fusilier]

There's a Tony Hillerman character who carries a knife, and when the other policeman questions him about it he cites a figure of 21' being the range from which a knife-wielder can get to you before you can draw and fire your holstered gun.

I think this assumes a well trained knifeman who gets the drop on an average person gunman -- not an experienced trick shooter with an old-west style quick-draw holster, who's waiting for the knifeman to "make his move". :-)

The attacker often has an advantage as the defender is typically unprepared for the attack. Police undergo very strenuous training to be prepared to react to such situations.

[AgentPaper]

If someone is going to get a knife on you before you can get your gun out, how is having your own knife going to be any more useful? Are you going to drop your half-drawn gun and then take even more time to unsheathe your knife?

[kardar233]

I think this assumes a well trained knifeman who gets the drop on an average person gunman -- not an experienced trick shooter with an old-west style quick-draw holster, who's waiting for the knifeman to "make his move". :-)

That's definitely true. However, I've seen the study that Straybow is referencing, and while I don't quite recall the numbers 21 feet does sound right. It was a test to see how close someone with a knife would have to be so that by the time the officer got his weapon online he would already be stabbed.

[Xuc Xac]

I think this assumes a well trained knifeman who gets the drop on an average person gunman -- not an experienced trick shooter with an old-west style quick-draw holster, who's waiting for the knifeman to "make his move". :-)

It's actually the other way around: average person with a knife versus trained gunman. If the knife-wielder is closer than 21 feet, the gunman won't have time to draw and fire before being stabbed. A lot. If the gunman doesn't already have his gun drawn and ready when the knife wielder charges, then it's too late for shooting. The gunman needs to focus on running away or grabbing the knife hand before getting cut and stabbed too badly.