Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. XIV

[Mr. Mask]

I'm afraid I don't understand how that is different from HP.


I have trouble understanding why you would twist the blade instead of cutting it out.

[Brother Oni]

I'm afraid I don't understand how that is different from HP.

In most systems, HP is just a measure of what it takes to kill you. I believe that in D&D, if you fell into a river in full armour, it would be a Swim roll, which is based off STR, to successfully make it to the surface before drowning, with hypoxia reflected in HP damage?

In the systems mentioned, endurance/stamina would be used as the test attribute instead, so the more injured and tired you are, the less likely you are to make it to the surface.

The difference is, that in D&D under RAW, you would have the same chance of success whether you were near death (1HP) or at full HP, while the other system takes previous injuries/exhaustion into account.
In Fighting Fantasy, the normal test for Stamina is STA+2d6, thus for a difficult task of Target Number 20, a very fit, strong and uninjured person with maximum 24 Stamina would automatically succeed, while the same person at 50% health would find it much more difficult (12+2d6 is a ~42% chance of success to get 20 or above).

I have trouble understanding why you would twist the blade instead of cutting it out.

You're thinking from the wrong angle. I'm stabbing you therefore I want to maximise damage, which twisting the blade would do.
Add that into the large spade like structure of the pugio and you have some extremely nasty wounds.

[Galloglaich]

Getting swords stuck in people seems to definitely be a 'THING', several of the fencing manuals warn against stabbing people when you are in a group fight situation especially if you are outnumbered, and there are numerous examples of specific incidents where somebody got their sword stuck in a victim and it ended badly for them.

I think this is why by the Middle Ages so many spears and polearms had a notable crossbar or equivalent.

G

[Incanur]

As far as 'lack of stopping power' or thrust goes, I would believe that this is indeed the issue that had risen from the experiences with late rapiers, smallswords, epees and other specialised dueling weapons.

In all other instances, people have murdered themselves with stabbing weapons trough the ages, and I don't think anyone would seriously try to consider 'average' spear, dagger, arrow, javelin etc. wounds 'not stopping enough'.

While thrusts from wider spears would generally cause more blood loss than thin sword points and have a slightly higher chance of hitting part the central nervous system, unless they hit the central nervous system such thrusts still won't necessarily incapacitate immediately or even quickly. The use of spears, arrows, daggers, and javelins in battle in no ways suggests otherwise. For one thing, on the battlefield armor makes inflicting the kind of cuts that incapacitate instantly difficult if not impossible. Folks certainly often survived many wounds in battle. Florange, for example, supposedly had forty-some serious injuries after his father pulled him from among the dead at Novara 1513.

[Galloglaich]

Only if the armor covers every key part of the body ... truly full (cap-a-pied) armor coverage always ranged from very rare to pretty rare even in the heyday of armor. Torso and head were the most likely to be protected, and that left neck, arms, legs ... a severed arm or leg is pretty incapacitating.

You read just as many accounts of people being dropped pretty quickly by a single strike or arrow as you do accounts of people fighting on and on with dozens of wounds.

G

[Beleriphon]

You read just as many accounts of people being dropped pretty quickly by a single strike or arrow as you do accounts of people fighting on and on with dozens of wounds.

G

Well, dozens of wounds are probably serious but not immediately life threatening. Its possible to survive dozens of stab wounds and there are reported cases of it happening. Its even possible to survive and axe to the head only to die later of blood loss because the blow damaged the part of the brain the registers injuries and pain. While these circumstances are rate I don't doubt that prior to modern medicine and surgery that the survivors of these injuries were pretty well documented as extraordinary.

[Rhynn]

While thrusts from wider spears would generally cause more blood loss than thin sword points and have a slightly higher chance of hitting part the central nervous system, unless they hit the central nervous system such thrusts still won't necessarily incapacitate immediately or even quickly.

This is just the inherent unpredictability of the human body. Some people break down and collapse, incapacitated, when they are shot in a limb non-critically. Some people keep fighting after being fatally shot, until hypovolemic shock or damage to the CNS disable and kill them. Crazy bastards. A lot of it actually seems to be mental, related to the mindset and determination of the combatant. (I decided to model this with COOL tests in my Fuzion cyberpunk game: if you get shot, you have to roll to stay in the fight mentally.)

Important point for any RPG combat system striving for realism: actual immediate death is really, really rare. Most RPGs are completely silly about this, but basically, only massive CNS damage (like decapitation) or other gross trauma (being bisected in some direction across the torso) will kill you immediately. Even damage directly to the brain frequently just leaves you dying. Death from hypovolemia (loss of blood, and the lack of oxygen to the brain that follows) would probably be the most common type of death in combat, but death after combat would be even more common. Even if you don't want to use infection (I feel it adds a lot to HârnMaster combat and play), complications or the sheer severity of the trauma can lead to death hours or days later.

As a corollary, fatal injuries aren't always disabling immediately; George Silver complained that rapier duellists were likely to kill each other, and as far as I'm aware, that is a real risk, because you can deal wounds that caused slow but ultimately fatal internal bleeding (or got infected fatally) but might not even be noticed in the moment. This is why, in "proper" martial arts, you never stop when you score a hit, even a technically "fatal" one - you keep moving, disengage and get back into a guard. A dying man can kill you.

Edit:
The Dubious Quick Kill (Part 2) was mentioned, but I'm not sure if it was posted in this iteration of the thread, and anyway, here it is without needing to look for it. Some of the accounts are incredible and terrible.

[Galloglaich]

The instant-death kills are fairly rare, but dropping people so they stop functioning, or greatly reduce functioning, isn't, even when they receive non-mortal wounds. The 'Berzerker' type is pretty rare though it does exist (especially in certain cultural contexts).

G

[Mike_G]

Been doing the medic thing for a long time, and I've seen people walking and talking with bad injuries and people totally incapacitated from much less severe injuries.

While it is true that a deep thrust is very likely to hit an organ and kill you eventually, it might not slow you down right away, I think there is a tendency to oversell that idea that thrusts have no stopping power. And there's a world of difference between a smallsword in the gut and a claymore in the gut.

A con/shock/fortitude type roll seems very reasonable for whether a wound stops a fighter or not.

A strong cut that severs muscle or breaks a bone would incapacitate a limb regardless of how tough you are.

[Livius]

I have a question.

How does urban warfare work pre-gunpowder? Are there any particularly effective weapons/equipment/tactics?
How much does the street arrangement matter (grid vs. maze)?

Note: I don't mean an attack from outside the walls, but rather two armies fighting a battle in the city.

[Mr Beer]

I have a question.

How does urban warfare work pre-gunpowder? Are there any particularly effective weapons/equipment/tactics?
How much does the street arrangement matter (grid vs. maze)?

Note: I don't mean an attack from outside the walls, but rather two armies fighting a battle in the city.

I would think that arms that allow for lots of men in a short fighting front would be useful, like the Roman.

Knowledge of the city would be crucial.

Occupying high points would allow for "sniping" type attacks with ranged weapons and dropping heavy objects.

Occupying low ground such as sewer systems could also be extremely useful.

You are always fighting in "three dimensions", this adds a lot of extra tactical considerations.

Funnelling your enemies with street barricades into a tight quarter might be a strategy. Setting fire to the area once they are trapped could be extremely effective, albeit potentially dangerous to your own side.

I think anything like unrestricted fighting for any length of time in mediaeval settings = city ends up burning anyway.

[AMFV]

I have a question.

How does urban warfare work pre-gunpowder? Are there any particularly effective weapons/equipment/tactics?
How much does the street arrangement matter (grid vs. maze)?

Note: I don't mean an attack from outside the walls, but rather two armies fighting a battle in the city.

There were also several battles in Mesopotamia where they flooded cities by breaking the dams and then just waited for a while, that's a pretty effective tactic back then as well. Although I don't know if that was wide spread or only in those small instances.

[Livius]

I would think that arms that allow for lots of men in a short fighting front would be useful, like the Roman.

The whole large shield, short weapon combination?

Knowledge of the city would be crucial.

Occupying high points would allow for "sniping" type attacks with ranged weapons and dropping heavy objects.

Occupying low ground such as sewer systems could also be extremely useful.

You are always fighting in "three dimensions", this adds a lot of extra tactical considerations.

Funnelling your enemies with street barricades into a tight quarter might be a strategy. Setting fire to the area once they are trapped could be extremely effective, albeit potentially dangerous to your own side.

What sort of formation helps you advance on a barricade across a cross-street?
A phalanx would get flanked, while a wedge probably can't break through the wider front at the barricade.

Is there a big difference in weapon preference for offense vs. defense?
Do spears have any use?

[Mike_G]

I have a question.

How does urban warfare work pre-gunpowder? Are there any particularly effective weapons/equipment/tactics?
How much does the street arrangement matter (grid vs. maze)?

Note: I don't mean an attack from outside the walls, but rather two armies fighting a battle in the city.

Urban warfare presents a lot of challenges. First of all, you can't fight in battalions or companies, since the streets are too narrow, so you wind up fighting in smaller groups, which throws out a lot of the stuff you trained for, especially in pre-modern armies, where men are used to formation fighting.

Command and control is much harder. Building will block your view of your troops, their troops, and where the lines are. Without air recon or radios, a commander will only have a vague idea of most of the battlefield. It's easier for messengers to get lost in a maze of a city. Easy for one unit to advance far beyond the rest of the army and get cut off. Even in the 1990s in Somalia, in the battle of Mogidishu the US had a tough time getting the troops to the fighting because of barricades and blocked streets. And they had radios and air cover.

The second story of a building is a problem. Even an untrained, unarmored, unarmed civilian can toss stuff out onto your head. And if he has flammable stuff to toss, that can suck to be you.

Ranges will be short. Crossbows and longbows will not have the advantage they would on an open field. Expect the enemy to be able to stay hidden until you get up to him if he wants to.

Move through buildings. Streets are known pathways and funnels to ambush. If you move through the buildings, the enemy can't see you, can't anticipate your movement, and you can use upper floors to look for enemy movement and do your own sniping/dropping heavy stuff.

Cavalry lose their advantage. horses can be ambushed from doors and windows, hit from above and lured into alleys where they can't maneuver. It's easy to hide caltrops or tripwires in dark alleys and lame the mounts.

I think it's easier for an invading force to surround the city and starve them out, or use fire or disease, or even the threat of total destruction to get the city to surrender.

History has plenty of stories of technologically superior forces taking a beating in urban warfare. You can win a fight in a city, but it's ugly, and without good communication and observation capability, it's much worse.

[Mr. Mask]

Brother: Oh, that's pretty good with the endurance system.


What I mean is, if you stab someone in the corner of their abdomen you shouldn't just pull the blade out or twist it and pull it out. You should drag it across their stomach and disembowel them. There might be cases where you can't cut out because ribs are in the way, and you can't cut out like that if they're wearing armour (that's probably the key reason).


Rhynn: Unfortunately, many survive bisection... Attacking the central nervous system can result in death from shock still. Removal of the head isn't guaranteed instant death, as the victim's head can still be alive for a brief space of time (unless the shock kills them). Destruction of the head is the only true instantaneous death.

As you point out, most deaths occur after the battle. Infection was a huge killer.

That being said, injuries which don't kill immediately are still very incapacitating. Blood loss is also more serious than many sources make it seem, and relatively minor wounds will still make you bleed out if you don't quickly see to them.


Mike: My experience is the same. Pain is very hard to predict.


Livius: You can't cross a barricade while maintaining formation. If you're worried about being attacked from multiple sides, something like a circle-formation is your best bet.

Mike has done a good job of covering many of the aspects.

[Brother Oni]

There were also several battles in Mesopotamia where they flooded cities by breaking the dams and then just waited for a while, that's a pretty effective tactic back then as well. Although I don't know if that was wide spread or only in those small instances.

Very popular in early Chinese warfare too. Often the cities were on low lying ground, so the attackers had the choice of either digging a channel to redirect a river, or blocking a river up and breaking the dam once there was enough stored water.

What I mean is, if you stab someone in the corner of their abdomen you shouldn't just pull the blade out or twist it and pull it out. You should drag it across their stomach and disembowel them. There might be cases where you can't cut out because ribs are in the way, and you can't cut out like that if they're wearing armour (that's probably the key reason).

Actually it's because it's a fighting situation and you don't have the time or luxury to drag your weapon. In addition trying to drag your weapon to widen often means you're unguarded so they can crack your head open.
As the recent posts in this thread have testified to, a mortally wounded man can still kill you.

You stick them, twist and get your weapon out, ready for their counter attack or the next person to come charging in. Practised enough, it's a pretty much reflexive action which takes only fractions of a second to complete.

[Animastryfe]

Galloglaich's comments about the stiletto in the previous page reminds me of a situation that came up in the second episode of the third season of the TV show Sherlock. Spoilers follow.

Can someone be stabbed with a thin blade, perhaps needle-like, in the torso and not feel it? In the show, someone murdered a Buckingham palace guard by surreptitiously stabbing him with such a blade through his tight belt. The belt supposedly kept the wound closed, and the guard did not notice the wound. When the guard took his belt off, the wound opened and he quickly bled to death.

[Brother Oni]

Galloglaich's comments about the stiletto in the previous page reminds me of a situation that came up in the second episode of the third season of the TV show Sherlock. Spoilers follow.

Can someone be stabbed with a thin blade, perhaps needle-like, in the torso and not feel it? In the show, someone murdered a Buckingham palace guard by surreptitiously stabbing him with such a blade through his tight belt. The belt supposedly kept the wound closed, and the guard did not notice the wound. When the guard took his belt off, the wound opened and he quickly bled to death.

Actually the guardsman survived.

This was discussed in the Sherlock thread and it's theoretically possible - those belts are very tight, which could act as a tourniquet to hold the wound together.

There's a story about a Russian woman, Julia Popova who was stabbed and she didn't realise it until she got home and looked in a mirror: link (warning gruesome).

[Mr Beer]

The whole large shield, short weapon combination?

I'm thinking more about the relatively short stabbing (I know it can also cut) weapon, allowing lots of people side by side. Of course, a shield is good too, not sure if a big shield is ideal in cramped quarters though.

What sort of formation helps you advance on a barricade across a cross-street?
A phalanx would get flanked, while a wedge probably can't break through the wider front at the barricade.

Idunnolol. If you can't go around it and have to attack frontally, I guess a crapload of missiles followed closely by a massed charge is optimal.

[Brother Oni]

I'm thinking more about the relatively short stabbing (I know it can also cut) weapon, allowing lots of people side by side. Of course, a shield is good too, not sure if a big shield is ideal in cramped quarters though.

Long arms like spears would also be technically useful in this situation as they allow more than one rank to fight at a time, but in reality, buildings tend to get in the way, particularly the European late Middle Ages buildings which were built with the second storey overhanging the street.

Bear in mind that streets were much narrower back then than now, although this would depend on the exact period and city in question.

Idunnolol. If you can't go around it and have to attack frontally, I guess a crapload of missiles followed closely by a massed charge is optimal.

Shield wall probably until you can get close enough to either assault the defenders or the fortification.

[Mike_G]

I'm thinking more about the relatively short stabbing (I know it can also cut) weapon, allowing lots of people side by side. Of course, a shield is good too, not sure if a big shield is ideal in cramped quarters though.



Idunnolol. If you can't go around it and have to attack frontally, I guess a crapload of missiles followed closely by a massed charge is optimal.

Or go through the buildings on either side and outflank it. Or get a higher floor and rain missiles down on it.

Don't just charge up Main Street. Unless you want to get ambushed.

[Mr. Mask]

Oni: Oh right, you'll be thinking of stabbing from a distance. I really advise against that. If you're going to use a knife: Get very close, grab them, then turn them into mess you'll probably have nightmares about for the rest of your life. Stabs and cuts from a distance are not conductive to surviving, they'll end up with both you and your attacker being lightly wounded and bleeding out (and you'll have multiple attackers). I'm not experienced with how cutting out goes when stabbing at a distance.

If you drag a knife across a person's abdomen, they're usually too busy holding their organs in to think of attack (but attack is still a possibility). The first thing no matter what you do (assuming you can't run) is to move and grab your opponent so that they can't harm you or have difficulty harming you. If you've botched that step, it doesn't make a lot of difference what technique you use.

[Berenger]

I have a question.

How does urban warfare work pre-gunpowder? Are there any particularly effective weapons/equipment/tactics?
How much does the street arrangement matter (grid vs. maze)?

Note: I don't mean an attack from outside the walls, but rather two armies fighting a battle in the city.

If I get half an hour to prepare, I'd build a barricade and block the area in front of it with caltrops and chains that are stretched from house to house, over the street. The barricade and the upper floors of the surrounding houses will be manned by crossbowmen. The doors of said houses are boarded up and the stairs are blocked with furniture (the men in the houses can retreat through a series of wall breakthroughs - the last one is so low that they have to crawl, this way enemies following them present their heads and necks to a guard with an axe).

[Thiel]

Oni: Oh right, you'll be thinking of stabbing from a distance. I really advise against that. If you're going to use a knife: Get very close, grab them, then turn them into mess you'll probably have nightmares about for the rest of your life. Stabs and cuts from a distance are not conductive to surviving, they'll end up with both you and your attacker being lightly wounded and bleeding out (and you'll have multiple attackers). I'm not experienced with how cutting out goes when stabbing at a distance.

If you drag a knife across a person's abdomen, they're usually too busy holding their organs in to think of attack (but attack is still a possibility). The first thing no matter what you do (assuming you can't run) is to move and grab your opponent so that they can't harm you or have difficulty harming you. If you've botched that step, it doesn't make a lot of difference what technique you use.

Problem is if you're that close then so is he and outside of a mugging there's no guarantee that he won't try and do the same to you.

[Mr. Mask]

The idea is to get close, grab him so he can't hurt you but you can hurt him. That's what hopefully will happen.

As you point out, your enemy won't comply. There's a good chance that if they have a knife, they know how to use it better than you and are more willing. When you try to grab them and put them in a weak position, they also will try to grab you and put you in a weak position. The winner of that will become the survivor of the encounter.

You might then think it's better to stab at them from a distance so as to avoid that... but if you try to do that, and they decide to get close and grab you... money's on them.

Of course, the best option is to break away and escape.

[Mike_G]

You try to hold onto his knife hand and stab him until he stops struggling. There's not a lot of finesse involved. Control his weapon and mess his crap up.

Unless you are totally ambushing him from behind, in which case you can stab him in the side of the neck and rip the blade out the front.

I am a fan of backing away quickly while shooting him, if it's all the same.

[Livius]

Thanks for all the responses.

Is this an accurate summary for an effective attacking force, or is my understanding still faulty?

Overall organization:
Lots of autonomy to small unit commanders. Combined arms forces, coordinated overall by mounted messengers. Most reserves kept near the front for reacting to enemy surprises (at discretion of local commanders).

Cavalry:
Attack like mounted infantry to seize strongpoints before enemy defenses can be set up. Fight dismounted.
Afterwards, serve as scouts/messengers to keep army coordinated. Stay on the main streets or secured areas where they can maneuver properly.

Melee infantry:
Advance with shield walls to defend against enemy missiles. Help archers secure buildings to get fire support. Break through barricades with archer support. Short weapons (sword or axe) for maneuverability.

Archers:
Fire support for the infantry from upper floors. Concentrate on enemy barricade defenders (infantry can take buildings from the street once the barricade is broken), don't worry as much about counter-archer fire (unless it is heavy enough to prevent them from doing their primary job).

[AgentPaper]

Thanks for all the responses.

Is this an accurate summary for an effective attacking force, or is my understanding still faulty?

Horses aren't going to be any use in the city, any cavalry should either stay outside the city to secure the supply train, or they should dismount and serve as heavy infantry if you have more than are needed for those tasks.

Archers wouldn't be much use either. They would mostly be restricted to strong points, mostly the walls, towers, and any tall buildings such as churches. They wouldn't be able to support ground troops, since the narrow buildings and overhangs would prevent them from hitting anyone further than the street below them, if that. Instead, they would serve to deny specific areas and a counter to enemy archers trying to do the same. They might take some potshots when they get the chance, but probably won't be much use overall.

The real fighting will happen in the streets, and it'll be between small groups of infantry fighting building-to-building. Unless one side has far superior forces, expect the fighting to drag on for days, if not weeks or even months. I'd suggest looking at the kind of fighting that happened in Stalingrad if you want to know what it'd be like.

[Mr. Mask]

Knife: Mike has summed it up well.


Livius: That's a pretty good summary. What the archers focus on depends on the situation (sometimes they will focus on enemy range support).


Paper: Cavalry wouldn't get their full use, but if they can run through certain areas, some cavalry is still good for delivering messages or getting from A to B quickly.

Archers would be useful support. There are situations you can't utilize them, but there are situations where a few arrows coming down is a big plus for your infantry.

[Animastryfe]

Actually the guardsman survived.

This was discussed in the Sherlock thread and it's theoretically possible - those belts are very tight, which could act as a tourniquet to hold the wound together.

There's a story about a Russian woman, Julia Popova who was stabbed and she didn't realise it until she got home and looked in a mirror: link (warning gruesome).

Thank you for the reply. You are correct, the guardsman survived.