Got a Real-World Weapon or Armour Question? Mk. XV

[Incanur]

Funny I brought up fighting in space now. There happens to be a thread in the science board about missiles versus lasers versus railguns and other weapons, when used in space: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...4#post17463304

Any thoughts on that?

Lasers are the best in vacuum if you can make them powerful enough. Missiles are slow in comparison. X-ray lasers allow for the possibility of creating an Unstoppable Death Ray of Stupendous Range.

Another possibility with humans instead of AI, is if they found out a way to enhance human function with cybernetics?

That's basically what you today, though without implants. More direct merging of humans and computers seems likely.

[Aedilred]

Generally, the pre-requisite for an "empire" seems to be that it has multiple, disparate cultures within it's sovereignty, whereas a "nation" only has a single cultural identity, or at least a small subset of similar ones. For example, the Romans had an empire because they ruled over a lot of different cultures (something they tried to "fix" by making everyone else roman too, which worked to a degree), such as Greeks, Gauls, Iberians, Carthiginians, Jews, Egyptians, etc. Whereas France is a nation, because (most of) everyone within it's borders speaks French and identifies as French, more or less.

A lot of it is historiographical, of course, rather than anything else. Usage of "Emperor" and the like was often alarmingly vague, and it's possible to have a completely republican empire (Rome before Augustus or post-Tyrannical Athens being notable examples). King Charles I often referred to his "Imperial Crown" because he had three kingdoms (plus overseas territories) and wanted them to consider themselves a singular entity, but he's never referred to as an Emperor. In fact the British Empire - though always referred to as such - only had an Emperor (or Empress) in respect of India, not of the whole thing (that was still a king/queen).

In the western tradition, the title seemed to be basically binary and derive from Rome. Occasionally you'd get someone popping up calling themselves "Emperor of Spain" but it didn't tend to last more than a generation. You had the Emperor in the west (initially Carolingian, then Holy Roman) and the Emperor in the east (later adopted by the Tsar), each of them effectively claiming descent from the tetrarchical Emperors of Rome. Other key elements seemed to be authority over more than one king (even if all those kings were yourself) and recognition by the head of the church - technically none of the Emperors after the 16th century were ever Emperors because they weren't crowned by the Pope, although they continued to use the title.

There is an argument to be made that there is a higher secular title (in the west) than Emperor. Taking the view that the Greek basileus is equivalent to the Latin-derived "Emperor" (and although the etymology of "Emperor" is problematic for this purpose, basileus was the Greek title used by later Roman emperors, so it should be valid), originally the basileus was himself a sub-ruler, with his ruler being the Anax (or Wanax, or Wanaka if taking the original phonetics). But that fell out of use before the Classical period and the start of the western literary tradition, so it's pretty damn archaic (in fact, pre-Archaic). But I've always felt it would make a good "ultimate title".

Realistically, though, like you say, people will call themselves what they want, and a bunch of territories united under a common ruler will generally be called an Empire because, well, what else are you going to call it?

[Mr. Mask]

Sorry for adding so many topics of discussion. I have trouble with speaking my mind.


Any thoughts on mobile nuclear weapon platforms, ala Metal Gear? The idea used to be popular, but then they worked out how to make armoured silos. Still, I wonder if one might be useful.

[AgentPaper]

Sorry for adding so many topics of discussion. I have trouble with speaking my mind.


Any thoughts on mobile nuclear weapon platforms, ala Metal Gear? The idea used to be popular, but then they worked out how to make armoured silos. Still, I wonder if one might be useful.

I don't know about mobile on land, but mobile in water seems to be pretty popular.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Didn't the Soviet Union have trains with short-range ballistic missile launchers (I think that's what the train in Goldeneye's supposed to be based on)? And I don't doubt that NATO had something that's still highly classified.

Single missiles on the back of a truck are one thing, but if you want a sizable number (like on a missile sub, or nuke-tipped ALCMs coming off something like a B52), the main issue is the support staff required to maintain and ensure the security of the weapons - eventually you get into something the size of the proposed Panzer 11 (aka the Monster), and it consumes too many resources, moves far too slowly, can't cross anything except the most heavily reinforced bridges, and is a target for every single aircraft that can drop ordnance on it.

And to be honest, Mecha themselves aren't exactly practical either.

[Brother Oni]

Didn't the Soviet Union have trains with short-range ballistic missile launchers (I think that's what the train in Goldeneye's supposed to be based on)?

Yup, carrying these things.

And to be honest, Mecha themselves aren't exactly practical either.

Depends on the type of Mecha. While the popular view is of humanoid fighting robots or suits, the term includes all machines controlled by people, so tanks and drones are technically Mecha as well.

As for practicality, humanoid fighting machines like the Gundam are certainly not feasible and mechs (Battletech) or wanzers (Ring of Red), are very impractical compared to a tank.
Other uses though are more feasible - the P5000 powerloader from Aliens or the construction labors (Patlabor) are more realistic, espcially with the various exoskeleton assisted lifting suits currently in development.

Going outside the scope of the thread, entertainers are highly likely: take a look at the HRP-4C. Note that this version has vocaloid software, so she is technically singing the song rather than a pre-recorded human voice. Speculation on gynoids in the sex industry (particularly when combined with the RealDoll product) are board inappropriate.

[Matthew]

Mark Twain has a lot to answer for.

Although this does remind me of something I've wondered about for years: the Earl of Warwick at the battle of Barnet. Schoolboy history has it that he fell from his horse and his armour was so heavy he couldn't get up again and was killed on the ground. But this is the same schoolboy history that confuses tournament armour with field armour, that's the product of generations of Whig historians assuming everyone in the Middle Ages was basically an idiot, and so on.

I mean, apart from anything else, Warwick supposedly killed his horse at Towton to inspire the men, and fought on on foot. So either in the intervening ten years he started wearing much heavier armour for some reason, or the Barnet story is a pack of lies.

Basically, the Warwick story just doesn't sound realistic, but it's the only version of the event I've heard. Does anyone know of another more likely/accepted interpretation?

The Continuation of William of Tyre from the thirteenth century says much the same, in that contemporary armour was so heavy that once dismounted a knight could not fight well on foot (or get up, maybe), but it is to draw a contrast with the men of Richard I's time, who were able to fight equally well ahorse or afoot. Also, there is one story of a knight slipping on his cloak and killing himself, but how much of that is true and how much to make a "pride cometh before a fall" point? Unfortunately, that is the nature of the historiography. Best we can say is that there is some evidence that men who fell off their horses might have found their armour an encumbrance in getting back up, but practical tests suggest that this is not because they limited movement (more likely because armour is exhausting to wear for prolonged periods).

[super dark33]

The Continuation of William of Tyre from the thirteenth century says much the same, in that contemporary armour was so heavy that once dismounted a knight could not fight well on foot (or get up, maybe), but it is to draw a contrast with the men of Richard I's time, who were able to fight equally well ahorse or afoot. Also, there is one story of a knight slipping on his cloak and killing himself, but how much of that is true and how much to make a "pride cometh before a fall" point? Unfortunately, that is the nature of the historiography. Best we can say is that there is some evidence that men who fell off their horses might have found their armour an encumbrance in getting back up, but practical tests suggest that this is not because they limited movement (more likely because armour is exhausting to wear for prolonged periods).

This may clerify some things, and also answer some questions.

A good watch anyway.

[Matthew]

Looks like a good watch, but does it actually bear on the text I was referring to?

[Lilapop]

Mark Twain has a lot to answer for.

Although this does remind me of something I've wondered about for years: the Earl of Warwick at the battle of Barnet. Schoolboy history has it that he fell from his horse and his armour was so heavy he couldn't get up again and was killed on the ground. But this is the same schoolboy history that confuses tournament armour with field armour, that's the product of generations of Whig historians assuming everyone in the Middle Ages was basically an idiot, and so on.

I mean, apart from anything else, Warwick supposedly killed his horse at Towton to inspire the men, and fought on on foot. So either in the intervening ten years he started wearing much heavier armour for some reason, or the Barnet story is a pack of lies.

Basically, the Warwick story just doesn't sound realistic, but it's the only version of the event I've heard. Does anyone know of another more likely/accepted interpretation?

Not sure about which specific source to look at for "schoolboy history". My initial thought was that it wasn't his armor's weight that kept him from getting up, but rather some enemies. The wikipedia article about the battle seems to agree:

Regardless of the king's intent, other Yorkist soldiers, perhaps ignorant of the order, found Warwick first. They pulled him down, pried open his visor, and fatally stabbed him through the neck. Edward's guards found Warwick's corpse, mutilated and stripped of its gilded armour.

Getting pulled down, and hold down, sounds much more reasonable than falling and being unable to get back up.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Depends on the type of Mecha. While the popular view is of humanoid fighting robots or suits, the term includes all machines controlled by people, so tanks and drones are technically Mecha as well.

True, and things like Wolverines from the second Command and Conquer, Star Wars EU AT-PTs or 40k Dreadnoughts - basically things that can carry heavy weapons into congested environments and act as infantry support - are probably a lot more practical than Gundam, AT-ATs/AT-STs, Metal Gears or Titans.

But in most cases, you're probably still better off with a tank or other armoured vehicle.

And IIRC, the only thing that's really stopping the Powerloader is a suitable power source (the ones in Aliens were massive puppets).

Weight of armour: I haven't looked, but I assume one of those clips is of Mike Loades riding in on a horse in full plate, throwing himself off, rolling on the floor to get up and then doing star jumps, just to prove how flexible and unhindering it really was.

If they're not, they should be.

As Matthew said, the real issue is endurance - someone who can afford, or is equipped with, heavy armour, would train in it a lot and build up their endurance, but given that until we get to the Napoleonic era and the techniques of food preservation that were around then, armies only really moved around in the campaign season of late spring to summer, when the weather is approaching it's warmest. Outside that time, the common (non-regular) soldiery tended to disperse to crop harvesting, or into winter quarters.

Fighting in heavy armour in those conditions, without time to rest or even take water on board, would be uncomfortable at best, and potentially give you heat stroke, if not outright hyperthermia - an important point to remember is that your body core is normally around the high 30s Celcius (mid 90's Farenheit), and if it gets up to 40 C (100-ish F), all the enzymes and proteins in your body that basically run all your metabolic functions start to denature and become useless.

Being clad in metal armour with thick cloth padding underneath that doesn't allow air to circulate around you to carry the heat away via convection and the evaporation of sweat, and minimises what you can lose in simple radiation is not the best thing in those circumstances.

[Galloglaich]

Hi guys, back from a long and wonderful vacation! Miss me?

As Matthew said, the real issue is endurance - someone who can afford, or is equipped with, heavy armour, would train in it a lot and build up their endurance, but given that until we get to the Napoleonic era and the techniques of food preservation that were around then, armies only really moved around in the campaign season of late spring to summer, when the weather is approaching it's warmest. Outside that time, the common (non-regular) soldiery tended to disperse to crop harvesting, or into winter quarters.

Definitely not true. First of all - many people could afford full plate harness (if that's what you mean by heavy armor), including most of the wealthier peasants, so keep in mind it was not limited to a specific elite. Second, raids and military campaigns all year long including in the dead of winter were quite common - late winter being especially favored because it's when the moats and rivers often froze solid allowing castles and towns to be attacked more easily.

Fighting in heavy armour in those conditions, without time to rest or even take water on board, would be uncomfortable at best, and potentially give you heat stroke, if not outright hyperthermia - an important point to remember is that your body core is normally around the high 30s Celcius (mid 90's Farenheit), and if it gets up to 40 C (100-ish F), all the enzymes and proteins in your body that basically run all your metabolic functions start to denature and become useless.

Being clad in metal armour with thick cloth padding underneath that doesn't allow air to circulate around you to carry the heat away via convection and the evaporation of sweat, and minimises what you can lose in simple radiation is not the best thing in those circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Heat stroke, dehydration etc. was definitely an issue with armor especially plate armor, notably during campaigns in the Middle East and for example it was believed to have played a role in the battle of Towton, in spite of snow flurries.

Re: parade armor vs. battlefield armor - I agree the 16th C Italian parade armor was still pretty effective armor in spite of not being spring-tempered. Spring temper is really only needed against guns and really heavy crossbows. The reason why the English had so much difficulty setting up the industry to make the south-German style tempered-steel armor (Alan Williams oversimplifies this by calling it all Augsburg and then Innsbruck, it was initially developed in several German town including Nuremberg) is that it was the product of a very complex and sophisticated culture, with dozens of guilds and merchant families in networks of subcontractors, with systems for inspection, training, and quality control, integrated with the local government systems as well as a well-informed customer base who could immediately distinguish lapses in quality themselves. It was this network which had been organically established in the south-German towns, combinations of consumers and producers, supply chains (providing good iron and fuel, among many other things) machinery (sophisticated water powered factories) and most especially highly specialized, highly skilled experts.

This isn't so easy to just transfer - it was a little easier for the Hapsburgs because they lived in a society that had elements of the same system in it, but in England the craft guilds were different by the 16th Century and much less robust.

By way of comparison something as comparatively simple as food culture is quite hard to transfer. I'm from New Orleans and I've travelled all over the world, when away from home I avoid the ubiquitous "Cajun" and "New Orleans" restaurants and food options like "blackened redfish" or gumbo like the plague since they are invariably terrible, except a few rare instances where New Orleans ex-pats set up a place somewhere and are able to get supplies from home. Even close to here, 40 or 50 miles north or east, they can't seem to pull it off. Why? The devil's in the details I guess.

G

[super dark33]

Looks like a good watch, but does it actually bear on the text I was referring to?

Actually yes. The presentor says one of the misconceptions came from Mark Twain.

[Mike_G]

Mark Twain did write A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court, which was very popular, and propagated the myth of heavy armor being hard to move in. Twain lived in the Victorian age, where a lot of these myths were put forward.

It, like most of what Twain wrote, was satire. In this case, of the idea of chivalry.

Don't blame the guy. He was a product of his time, and one of our greatest writers. He traveled to England and I'm sure he was told by some museum curator that the stuff was too heavy to stand up in.

Blaming him is like blaming the director of Airplane for the NSA'a poor record.

[Raum]

Any thoughts on mobile nuclear weapon platforms, ala Metal Gear? The idea used to be popular, but then they worked out how to make armoured silos. Still, I wonder if one might be useful.

The Davy Crockett needs to be mentioned every other RW thread instance I think. ;)

[No brains]

On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.

[Galloglaich]

On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.

I think it's certainly possible for someone to fall in thick mud, for example, and have trouble getting up - about the same as a modern infantryman with his gear. And as you say a fall from a horse can often be fatal in and of itself so no telling how injured someone might be.

G

[fusilier]

On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.

Back and joint complaints were common among condottiere; slipped disks from falling from horseback, and problems that would be associated with wearing heavy armor on horseback for long periods of time.

[Matthew]

Actually yes. The presentor says one of the misconceptions came from Mark Twain.

Eh? What has Mark Twain got to do with a thirteenth century French chronicle?

[super dark33]

Eh? What has Mark Twain got to do with a thirteenth century French chronicle?

Sorry, confused you with somone else.

[Aedilred]

On "Heavy" armor:

If somebody falls from their horse and can't get up before they are killed, it's almost certain that they didn't have time to actually say what was wrong with them either. It seems more likely to me that anyone who falls off a horse in armor (or out) might just break a bone or take some other kind of injury that would make movement in any equipment horribly difficult. If someone breaks one of their vertebrae in a fall and struggles to get up, it might look like they are fighting against the weight of their armor.

This is a really good point, and I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it myself.

[No brains]

This is a really good point, and I'm kicking myself for not having thought of it myself.

I'm happy you found my input useful!

[Durkoala]

Hi, all.
I just had a brainwave and need some information for a character.
If you were in an environment where you were likely to be attacked with both blades and bullets, and had procured a bullet-proof vest and a set of chainmail*, would it be better to wear the vest over or under the mail? Is there another armour option that is effective against being both shot and stabbed?

*yes, those don't really match. Roll with it.

[fusilier]

Hi, all.
I just had a brainwave and need some information for a character.
If you were in an environment where you were likely to be attacked with both blades and bullets, and had procured a bullet-proof vest and a set of chainmail*, would it be better to wear the vest over or under the mail? Is there another armour option that is effective against being both shot and stabbed?

*yes, those don't really match. Roll with it.

I'm just speculating here, but looking at the way bullet-proof vests are constructed (a typical police style one anyway), it might make more sense to wear it over chainmail (like a breast plate would be worn over chainmail). But I'm not sure it would be strictly necessary -- I think, historically, padded garments could be worn both over and under chainmail.

[Mr. Mask]

If you have the option, you'd probably be best with a ballistic knife-proof vest, like cops use. You could wear added mail on the limbs and areas not protected by the vest.

I don't know of any case where mail was worn over plate. Generally, the hardest and most rigid material goes on the outside (sometimes with a layer of soft material outside of it, like a surcoat).

[AgentPaper]

Hi, all.
I just had a brainwave and need some information for a character.
If you were in an environment where you were likely to be attacked with both blades and bullets, and had procured a bullet-proof vest and a set of chainmail*, would it be better to wear the vest over or under the mail? Is there another armour option that is effective against being both shot and stabbed?

*yes, those don't really match. Roll with it.

I would guess chain mail over, since you need to wear something under it anyways, and there's no point in having both a layer of padding and a layer of bulletproof armor.

[Durkoala]

@ Mr Mask

thanks! I knew that bullet vests weren't good against edged weapons, but not why police ones are knife-proof so I didn't consider those. My general reasoning was vest over mail because bullet holes open the mail for stabbing attacks and snagged weapons could tear it further, while the vest would need to be cut more before its protection was lost.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a surcoat was for showing your heraldry and not for armour.

@agentpaper
Aaannd we have a differing opinion. Thanks for replying. That does make sense, but I've thought up some points against it while typing this out.

Thanks for both your help. I'm still not decided, but it's late and I'm very tired (sorry if I came off as a bit wierd, I'm having trouble thinking straight) so I'll come back and think about it tommorow.

[Mr. Mask]

Whoops, misread part of that. Thought the question was whether to wear the mail over a breastplate. In the case of a ballistic vest with no knife mesh, you probably want to wear the mail over it. Some links will get busted if you get shot, but a lucky slash across the ballistic vest could cut it nearly in two. The ballistic vest can also function as padding for the mail.

Surcoats were for the big part to show your heraldry, and to keep the sun from heating your armour, yes. However, if the surcoat has a little thickness, it also takes the punch out of arrows and blows more than would be expected (still not huge, but for the weight it's pretty good).

[fusilier]

Whoops, misread part of that. Thought the question was whether to wear the mail over a breastplate. In the case of a ballistic vest with no knife mesh, you probably want to wear the mail over it. Some links will get busted if you get shot, but a lucky slash across the ballistic vest could cut it nearly in two. The ballistic vest can also function as padding for the mail.

Surcoats were for the big part to show your heraldry, and to keep the sun from heating your armour, yes. However, if the surcoat has a little thickness, it also takes the punch out of arrows and blows more than would be expected (still not huge, but for the weight it's pretty good).

Is the area that a ballistic vest covers the same that the padding for mail would cover?

[Mr. Mask]

Well, it'll work as padding for most of your torso. Padding generally covers everywhere the mail does, so you probably will need to supplement it.