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

[Rhynn]

(Really, does anybody go for headshots in general? )

Well, I think I've read that Delta Force operators train to take headshots in CQB (clearing rooms), but...

Especially if you want to make sure not to kill the person.

Yeah, the idea of a "non-lethal" shot is pretty silly - people have died from shock from really "insignificant" GSWs. The movie staple of shooting someone in the shoulder or thereabouts is particularly egregious - aiming for the shoulder is very, very likely to damage the major blood vessels running into the arm and lead to massive bleeding. Same with shooting at the leg (thigh). You shoot guns at people to kill them.

Less-lethal solutions like rubber bullets still aren't non-lethal. (For that matter, neither are electroshock weapons.) And wooden bullets... ugh. Especially at short ranges, less-lethal bullets can be very lethal (particularly if you get hit in the head).

Plus, in practice, handguns are extremely inaccurate in an actual situation (particularly if the target is armed or is otherwise a danger, in which case most shooters are trying to unload a huge amount of rounds fast) - the shots-to-hits ratios are usually terrible even in short-range firefights. And that's when they're aiming for the center of mass; aiming at heads or limbs would reduce accuracy even further.

Can't speak so much to how well rifles do, most of my reading has concerned handguns (police encounters are pretty great sources of data, because every bullet is accounted for, usually).

Obviously, there's exceptions - a sniper shooting at a stationary target, etc. Even then, though, procedure tends to be to take a lethal shot, because any shot is potentially lethal anyway, and you frequently can't take the chance that a "disabling" or "disarming" shot doesn't do what it was meant to.

[Mike_G]

Most combat shooting is at the center of mass. This gives you a decent margin of error. If you aim at the middle of the target, you can miss by a bit and still have an effect. In modern warfare, the enemy is generally either taking cover or moving quickly, and a head shot is tough on a moving target. Especially if you have rounds whipping past you and smacking the rocks you're hiding behind.

If you see a standing enemy in the open and shoot at his belt buckle, you can be high or low by two and a half feet and still drop him, and you can be wide left or right by nearly a foot and still hit him. Most soldiers hit by rifle rounds will stop shooting back at you. Whether they live or die really isn't important to you, so long as they fall down and stop shooting back.

Special forces do practice head shots because they are instantly disabling. You can shoot a guy in the heart and he may live ling enough to shoot back. At long range that isn't a big concern, but clearing a roomful of terrorists, maybe that is. That kind of accuracy takes a lot of training.

Trying to hit a guy's gun hand or his leg to put him out of action without killing him would be very difficult, and nobody advocates that. Not saying it's never been done, but it's never recommended.

Most shooting in combat is a guy jacked up on adrenalin rapidly throwing rounds in the general direction of another jacked up guy doing the same, all while trying to present the smallest target possible. It pretty much takes a man's weight in bullets to get a kill.

[Galloglaich]

I don't know if anyone was paying attention to the crossbow-incendiary bolt thing, but here is another nice addition, flaming bolts in action.



G

[Galloglaich]

Well, if it's on the internet it must be true! ;-)

Cannon design evolved considerably over the course of the 15th century and early 16th century. Which I've gone over before. So simply saying "this is a 15th century cannon", doesn't say it's representative of a weapon closer to 1400 or to 1500.

I think I was wrong when I said the two bronze swivel guns in the German museum were probably 16th century -- The style and construction are almost identical to 18th century Asian swivel guns. See the links in my previous post.

Like you post anything with a serious intent at learning or sharing knowledge? All you are trying to do is win an argument that you are utterly out of your depth in.

You claimed earlier - in an attempt to dismiss evidence of early cannon, that "most" 15th Century cannon used hoop and stave construction. If you actually knew anything about early firearms or cannon before the 17th Century you would know quite well that this is not the case, hoop and stave was only one of 3 principle construction methods in use from the late 14th Century onward (cast bronze, forged iron, and hoop and stave) and all three continued in use, alongside the mid- 15th Century Flemish invention of cast iron gun barrels, well into the 17th Century.

Several of the guns I posted, just like the earlier gigantic bombards I posted, have very well known dates of creation within 10 years of the year 1400. Some before some a bit after. At that time, they forged huge guns, short guns, long guns, and smaller ones. Most of the above were capable of sinking ships, though only the medium and smaller guns could be used from them that early.

The real question is, what caliber of gun, at what speed, does it take to punch holes through half inch or 1 inch planks of wood at point blank range. The answer is: most of the guns I just posted here can, and there have been dozens of tests which prove it. A volley from a half-dozen medium caliber (40-80mm) guns could sink a ship of that era- and guns of this caliber were UBIQUITOUS by the turn of the 14th century. But quite larger guns were also beginning to be used on ships at that time, up to 150 mm and more. And the navies of towns like Hamburg were at the very leading edge of the military / technological revolution of this time.

G

[Raum]

Like you post anything with a serious intent at learning or sharing knowledge? All you are trying to do is win an argument that you are utterly out of your depth in.

I profess no knowledge of the sources you're arguing over. However, you appear to be the one using ad hominem attacks to make your point. This isn't the first either...take an objective look at previous comments in this thread and the last.

Fallacious attacks aside, I enjoy and learn from what both you and Fusilier bring to the discussion. This is the internet...but perhaps we can stick to facts anyways? Else it's just multiple individuals doing their duty. Undoubtedly a forlorn hope.

[Galloglaich]

I profess no knowledge of the sources you're arguing over. However, you appear to be the one using ad hominem attacks to make your point. This isn't the first either...take an objective look at previous comments in this thread and the last.

Fallacious attacks aside, I enjoy and learn from what both you and Fusilier bring to the discussion. This is the internet...but perhaps we can stick to facts anyways? Else it's just multiple individuals doing their duty. Undoubtedly a forlorn hope.

If you have been on this thread a while, you will have noticed there is a big gap between the elusive reality of things like fighting with swords, warfare in the middle ages and so on - and the bizarre tropes and cliche's about these subjects which dominate the pop culture and the thousands of role-playing and computer games based upon it. There is a reason why the latter never seem to be even remotely similar to the former, partly because lets face it, many people tend to prefer fantasy over reality even when reality is more interesting and more engaging. Why that is the case? Who knows. But partly it's just because of it's own inertia, because it's harder to find out the reality about anything, to know anything real, than to just let the gibberish flow in. And there are a lot of people who actually do want to know.

I was one of those people. I didn't find out about the real martial arts of Medieval Europe until I was over 30 years old, in spite of being interested in it my whole life. That is why I've posted in this thread for however many years it's been- because when I was a teenager and a young man I would have liked to have access to some accurate information about this kind of stuff. Today I'm part of a community which gives me a lot of access -to information, to researchers, to the fencing manuals, to ancient weapons and manuscripts which I've held in my hands. To the top experts in the world in historical fencing and many other related fields. I try to post the interesting things I find here sometimes, the new stuff, the raw stuff - so some people really trying to find the real thing can find it.

There are a lot of threads on this forum, and others like it, and as far as I know only one "Real World Weapon or Armor" thread. The "real world" stuff is always eclipsed by the fantasy. Pointing out the "real world" stuff which is so often completely against the grain of the other, inevitably generates some friction. It's something I've tried to avoid, but you can't do so forever.

I don't think I've made a single 'fallacious attack' ever once in this thread, but I know I'm not always diplomatic. Facts are facts, nonsense is nonsense, I've learned the hard way when I was learning on my own, without a clear dividing line between the two you are going to lose your way and sink into the ocean of mediocre pablum.

But if I've offended the readers of the thread I apologize to them. I will take an extended break from it.

G

[fusilier]

Correct, I said "most", and I said "cannon", and I had stated that gun creating technology advanced during the 15th century, so that by the middle of the century large (huge) bombards were cast out of bronze. I also pointed out that by the late 14th century they could make quite large bombards using the hoop-and-stave method . . .

Perhaps I didn't do a good job of explaining all the details and subtleties, and I have confused or misled. I am, I admit, also human*, and capable of making mistakes -- like forgetting details or confusing some things up myself.

The context that was in my mind was the battle involving the Bunte Kuh. So, I was thinking of what was typical of the early 1400s.

Most of what I've learned about the nature of early naval ordnance is from the works of John F. Guilmartin. A historian of naval history who has focused a lot of his research into this very question -- when did ships begin to carry effective "anti-ship" ordnance?

When I see a claim that goes against those conclusions, the first reaction is to scrutinize the sources. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have had some training in evaluating and using sources to see if they justify certain claims, etc. That's what I was trying to do. If it passes the scrutiny, it will make the argument all the stronger.

Somehow we're now talking speculatively, whether or not they *could* have mounted cannon on ships that could sink other ships (circa 1400). That's a somewhat different argument -- I've delved into that in previous posts, and the answer is, typically, no -- but it's not that simple or straightforward.

However, the answer of "typically, no" is predicated upon a lack of evidence that ships regularly sank each other with ordnance in the early 15th century. So, if someone could find evidence that it occurred (regularly), then the premise could be undercut, and the answer would have to be reevaluated. This is where Kelly DeVries work is influential -- DeVries pointed out that much of the evidence for early cannon at sea doesn't hold up under close scrutiny. I feel, it's acceptable to challenge all early claims, and scrutinize them to see what they actually say. I did not intend to frustrate anyone, but only to confirm the sources.

* Of course that's exactly what a computer would say. Ref. Turing Test.

[Incanur]

I don't know if anyone was paying attention to the crossbow-incendiary bolt thing, but here is another nice addition, flaming bolts in action.

This is a lovely find. Where's it from? The piece not only shows flaming bolts but also shows crossbows shot from the saddle. Despite lots of evidence for shooting crossbows from the saddle, some folks still question the practice, so it's nice to have more sources.

[fusilier]

It was never my intention, or desire, to drive anyone from this board, especially someone who has provided such useful and informative responses.

I too, know the frustrations of dealing with fields in history that are mostly known through inaccuracies and misconceptions. While those fields that I have dealt with are different, much of the frustration is the same.

In this particular case, we happen to be opposed, each, I suspect, believing the other to be propounding inaccuracies, and each attempting, perhaps hoping, to correct the misconception. Not so much for the sake of each other (I certainly wouldn't have had the patience for that), but for the other readers of this board.

[Brother Oni]

Perhaps it might be worthwhile to put up a list of touchy subjects in the OP, to save things degenerating (again)?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

In a chat with a friend, "poisoned bullets" came up. Granted this is for a work of fiction they wanted some help with, but I like to draw inspiration from reality whenever reality could do something that needs to be done. I have four major questions that I would like help answering. Note that in all cases, the poison is not always a lethal one.

FIRST! How could one build a bullet to hold and release a poison?

Bullets deform a lot. This makes smearing a slug in poison difficult. Some people on a Yahoo Answers thread mentioned the use of hollow-points to contain a poison, but I was to understand that a hollow point would deform the shot even more, and probably push all of the poison off the now disk-shaped projectile. A hard metal canister contained in a softer jacket seems more plausible to me.

Seconded.What poisons could survive being heated by a gunshot?

This probably nixes most organic poisons, but maybe not. This is also complicated by the idea of a non-lethal poison bullet, as most chemically simple poisons are to my understanding lethal or horribly damaging like arsenic, mercury, or just lead.

The Third.Would any of those poisons work especially well?

With a bullet's tendency to over-penetrate and the impressive amount one could bleed from a GSW, can any poisons actually make it into someone/thing's system? This question could probably be obviated by a clever answer to question 1, but I figured it was worth delving into this issue in detail.

Fore!A little far from a real-world question, but what are some hypothetical things that could survive a bullet, but be affected by a poison?

I think man-portable firearms kill just about anything on Earth. Even elephants and whales are no match for the right shot of the right size. Even if something is shot in a non-vial area, a gunshot wound could be severely debilitating without poison. I am curious though about the idea that a poisoned bullet could help obviate the need for a well-placed shot, such as in a skirmish with a lot of cover where a good shot just isn't an option.

I would prefer answers that involve the poisoning of bullets fired from guns not built especially for firing poisoned bullets. Of course one could build a spring-loaded or air-compressed machine specifically for delivering poison, but what I want to know is if it is feasible to poison or construct a poison-carrying round that could be fired from a weapon similar to a S&W 500 or a hunting shotgun (or a deerslug thereof).

Apologies for any bad grammar; was rushed at last minute.

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov - he was a Bulgarian defector who was assassinated by the KGB in London in 1978, by a pellet containing ricin, fired from what was effectively a BB gun hidden inside an umbrella.

If you're not scared of being overt, then a barbed dart similar to those used by vets to sedate wild animals could be used.

If you want to kill them, then the poison is basically unnecessary - the only reason to add it is for terror purposes, making them die in a long drawn out way that scares everyone.

[Oneris]

What is the precedence and practicality for long skirts with full battle armor, for a functional yet distinctively feminine protective gear?

I know that for plate armor, after covering the face and hair with a helmet, rejecting the horribly impractical molded breastplate for a more practical and flatter shape, and obscuring most curves with padding and underclothing, a female silhouette is for all intents and purposes identical to that of a male.

From a quick google search, it seems that once all the impractically covered or shaped armors have been eliminated, any left that do not rely on the wearer being helmet-less to identify as female have some sort of skirt worn under the tassets, either fully fitted, or draped loosely.

Personal experience tells me that skirts with a sufficient fullness generally won't impede movement unless you're forced to bring your feet above the hem length (like going up stairs), after which you have a chance to catch the hem on the way down and trip, but I'd like to know if there would be any other hazards associated with adding a skirt onto a suit of full plate armor.

Spoiler: Examples

Show

Bonus Question! : How impractical is it to go into battle riding sidesaddle? Is it really as bad of an idea as it sounds?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

By long, I assume you mean knee length and lower - so wouldn't you be kicking the skirt everytime you ran, or had to quickly move your feet in melee, which massively increases your risk of stumbling and opening yourself up to an attack.

The reason to do it is to accentuate the femininity, which, unless there's a massively important reason to do so (the Adepta Sororitas in 40k for example, who are the Imperial Church's military because the church are banned from having "men under arms" , so on a political basis alone, they kind of need obviously female warriors), you might as well go with normal armour that everyone knows how to make, just slightly altered around the hips and upper torso for the wearers comfort.

The Sororitas have loincloths (and whatever the name for a loincloth that hangs over the posterior is), leaving their legs with freedom of movement (although reduced IMO) whilst still giving an appearance of religious robes and adding to the feminine appearance.

Riding sidesaddle? I guess that you're effectively protected on one side by the horse's body (and you could have thicker barding there), but you're losing flexibility in close combat (you can't really get around to the rear of the side of the horse that you're sitting on, and you're more hunched up so you can't really get leverage into any blows in melee or pull a bow as effectively) and you are potentially easier to drag off onto the ground (as all you've got is the pommel that your inside knee is hooked over and nothing to get any grip onto on the other side of the horse).

You could potentially charge into combat and then jump off your horse to fight on foot, which riding sidesaddle might make easier, while your horse disrupts your opponents movements by simply carrying on it's charge, in a similar manner to how some charioteers fought.

[Lilapop]

I don't know if anyone was paying attention to the crossbow-incendiary bolt thing, but here is another nice addition, flaming bolts in action.

I did! Just wasn't in the mood to contribute at that moment, and it got drowned by other topics pretty quickly. Here's a video of someone testing replicas of those: Fire Arrows! - Video 25. The banner on the left shows the coat of arms of the Swiss city of Bern - incidentally, at least the gunpowder mixture used in the video is from a Swiss source.

Fallacious attacks aside, I enjoy and learn from what both you and Fusilier bring to the discussion. This is the internet...but perhaps we can stick to facts anyways? Else it's just multiple individuals doing their duty. Undoubtedly a forlorn hope.

Been contemplating saying something in that direction, but wasn't sure how to put it. Thanks.

What is the precedence and practicality for long skirts with full battle armor, for a functional yet distinctively feminine protective gear?
[...]
Personal experience tells me that skirts with a sufficient fullness generally won't impede movement unless you're forced to bring your feet above the hem length (like going up stairs), after which you have a chance to catch the hem on the way down and trip, but I'd like to know if there would be any other hazards associated with adding a skirt onto a suit of full plate armor.
[...]
Bonus Question! : How impractical is it to go into battle riding sidesaddle? Is it really as bad of an idea as it sounds?

There might have been a short period where longer than knee-length mail skirts were used to make full-body armor before someone came up with mail leggings. For practicality of those, keep in mind that a battlefield usually doesn't start out as a well-trimmed lawn, and definitely doesn't end as one - stepping over boulders, roots, fallen trees, taller grasses, general elevation, barricades, and corpses is pretty similar to walking up and down stairs.

Also, even when you're just adding a cloth skirt to full plate like in the second picture, we're not talking about "flowing silk", but far heavier materials. Normal human gait always includes lifting the knee, so you will have to push up part of the weight above the knee and most of whats below it, which can amount to quite a bit with mail. Most of that effect can however be countermeasured by having the skirt slit at the side, but then riding would probably be kind of awkward.

Well, when sitting on a horse all the time, you might not have to worry about your lower legs' encumbrance...

[Brother Oni]

Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgi_Markov - he was a Bulgarian defector who was assassinated by the KGB in London in 1978, by a pellet containing ricin, fired from what was effectively a BB gun hidden inside an umbrella.

He did take 3 days to die however, something that's not acceptable for immediate incapacitation as originally posed (he fell ill with a fever that evening after being shot in the morning).

What is the precedence and practicality for long skirts with full battle armor, for a functional yet distinctively feminine protective gear?

Further to other comments, it depends on what you mean by 'skirt'. Surcoats would be quite long, although not especially feminine. According to the link, they did have a number of different styles, from long (mid calf), short (above the knee) to split (knee high at front, calf length at the back).
Tabards were even shorter, often being mid thigh or to the waist/hip only.

Surcoats were very popular during the Crusades and it's theorised they was adopted by the Crusaders from the Saracens to help keep the sun off their armour.

Personal experience tells me that skirts with a sufficient fullness generally won't impede movement unless you're forced to bring your feet above the hem length (like going up stairs), after which you have a chance to catch the hem on the way down and trip, but I'd like to know if there would be any other hazards associated with adding a skirt onto a suit of full plate armor.

Your personal experience is more than mine, but perhaps you could try something more athletic while wearing a skirt to get an idea of how cumbersome it would be? I would think anything lower than the knee would run the risk of tripping since you're rapidly moving back and forth during combat.

The only other trip hazard would be the limited field of view while helmeted (I've seen people fall over their own feet while weaing full face helms) and whatever your opponent tries to trip you up.

There might have been a short period where longer than knee-length mail skirts were used to make full-body armor before someone came up with mail leggings.

Full length mail hauberks often come down to the calf before being adjusted by the wearer, typically to just above the knee for the reasons you've mentioned. Generally the mail is made wider at the bottom so that there's little to no effect on mobility, although some individuals, especially cavalrymen, prefer split hauberks for the additional flexibility.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

He did take 3 days to die however, something that's not acceptable for immediate incapacitation as originally posed (he fell ill with a fever that evening after being shot in the morning).

Hence my comment about terror purposes - IIRC, ricin poisoning isn't exactly a nice way to exit this world. But if the assassin hadn't dropped his umbrella, it's likely no one would ever have suspected that as a delivery mechanism, and for a covert assassination, you want the killer to be both unsuspected and a long way away from their victim when they die.

Plus the toxin carrying projectile was only the size of a pin head - something a little larger, carrying a bigger dose, might have been more immediately lethal.

[snowblizz]

But if the assassin hadn't dropped his umbrella, it's likely no one would ever have suspected that as a delivery mechanism, and for a covert assassination, you want the killer to be both unsuspected and a long way away from their victim when they die.

That's kinda the thing with poisons though right. They are subtle usually, and that's why you want it. The other benefit is that it makes stuff lethal that might not otherwise be.

But when we migrate to guns, the need to be subtle is kinda moot nor is there a particular need for further enhancements in killing power.

[Broken Crown]

Bonus Question! : How impractical is it to go into battle riding sidesaddle? Is it really as bad of an idea as it sounds?

I'll admit I have no first-hand experience with riding sidesaddle, but from everything I've been told, it's not really practical for anything.

In battle, in addition to the the usual disadvantages, I expect you'd have the problem of being much less able to defend yourself. The traditional sidesaddle puts the rider's legs on the left side of the horse, but most people are right-handed, so this would tend to restrict the rider's ability to use a weapon. You also can't control the horse with your knees, which means you wouldn't have your hands free for fighting.

Dismounting would be easier (deliberately or otherwise!), but that's not really a virtue in cavalry. It might be workable for dragoons.

A skilled sidesaddle rider can perform some fairly impressive feats of equestrianism, but I can't think of any combat situation in which it would be preferable to riding astride the horse. I definitely can't think of any historical mounted warriors who rode that way.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

That's kinda the thing with poisons though right. They are subtle usually, and that's why you want it. The other benefit is that it makes stuff lethal that might not otherwise be.

But when we migrate to guns, the need to be subtle is kinda moot nor is there a particular need for further enhancements in killing power.

Unless you're dealing with something normal bullets can't kill, or can't cause enough damage to kill quickly enough - I can't think of anything in real life (maybe some of the big cats), but in fiction, there's the various silver nitrate/garlic/UV rounds of the Blade and Underworld movies for example.

Or you don't want to kill your target, you want to incapacitate them, which takes us back to loading with sedatives or incapacitants.

Another possibility is a contagion - hitting someone with a sealed pellet that's carrying a virus, so they can carry it back to their allies/friends/family and infect them with it (whether it's something lethal or incapacitory). In that case, you want them alive for a long time so they can infect as many people as possible before they start to show symptoms.

Depending on the underlying cause, that could potentially even cure a zombie plague.

[Brother Oni]

Hence my comment about terror purposes - IIRC, ricin poisoning isn't exactly a nice way to exit this world. But if the assassin hadn't dropped his umbrella, it's likely no one would ever have suspected that as a delivery mechanism, and for a covert assassination, you want the killer to be both unsuspected and a long way away from their victim when they die.

Plus the toxin carrying projectile was only the size of a pin head - something a little larger, carrying a bigger dose, might have been more immediately lethal.

I'm in agreement with you on use as a terror and assassination tool, I'm just disagreeing with on its usefulness in a firefight.

Looking up this paper (Time- and Concentration-Dependent Cytotoxicity of Ricin in Human Lung Epithelial Cells), it suggests that ricin lethality is independent of concentration, making it one of those poisons where only a very small amount is required to kill you (LD50 is ~22µg/kg by inhalation or injection), but it takes its time to do so (dimethylmercury I mentioned earlier is lethal at 0.1ml per person but took 5 months to kill that poor researcher).

This is in keeping with their method of action - ricin and dimethylmercury both monkey around with slower body processes (protein synthesis and brain chemistry respectively), while the much faster poisons either halt nerve function, stopping your breathing (sarin, VX, etc) or mess about with respiration (cyanide).

[Incanur]

If you want to kill them, then the poison is basically unnecessary - the only reason to add it is for terror purposes, making them die in a long drawn out way that scares everyone.

Except that people survive gunshots all the time. As I mentioned earlier, poison in theory increases the odds of a kill. I agree it's not necessary, but it should help. I suspect poisoned bullets aren't common because it's not worth the trouble and constitutes a public-relations nightmare. But poisoned bullets have seen some use in warfare and assassination since the 16th century or earlier. For example, refernces to poisoned bullets appear in the English Civil War. This early 20th-century source suggests poisoned bullets were filled with verdigris. In these two cases, as in many, allegations of poisoned-bullet use serve as way to describe the enemy as barbaric, so they may well have been false, but the weight of evidence indicates that poisoned bullets saw some use in battle over the ages.

In general even potent poisons take at least a few minutes to incapacitate, though some can supposedly act in seconds. This account of death by aconitine-nitrate-laced Nazi bullets describes the process as taking two hours. Note that it also shows how the Nazi military considered poisoned munitions a potential military advantage.

[spineyrequiem]

For the people talking about skirts in battle; my experience is limited (I've worn floor-length robes of various kinds, and I can tell you that those aren't fun with stairs, but I doubt you'd want them that long), but one thing that you might enjoy is this, particularly the fifth redesign. I'll admit the femininity is somewhat from the pose and helmet twintails, but it does have a nice bell-dress shape to it.

I suppose one could also try slits at the side of a chainmail skirt, which would allow you to run better (apparently) but just the sheer weight is going to be a problem; when moving your legs, you really don't want heavy stuff on your knees because it means you have to work so much harder. Then again, if you've got access to mithril (or some other fantastically light, strong material), you could pretty much go wild with the design, so long as it doesn't go much below the knee, as that will cause you problems.

[Oneris]

Yeah, I guess if you had to have a full skirt all the way around, a bit below knee-length is the limit.

What about short in the front, and long in the back, or split in the front? If the skirt was meant to provide thigh and leg protection, that's now gone, but you generally wouldn't have trouble going forwards, though stepping backwards with too-long a hem might still be a problem. Your legs also wouldn't have to support the weight of the fabric, and while riding astride, the back of the skirt could drape over the back of the horse.

I'm also entertaining the idea of a sort of crinoline to support the skirt and keep it away from the legs and feet. The weight might be negligible compared to the rest of the armor resting around the hips, and it could also deflect or at least entangle sword blows, though a broken crinoline definitely enters the 'horribly dangerous and impractical trip hazard' territory.

Which brings up the point of damaged skirts and how opponents could use your skirts against you. A couple of sword slashes, and you'd be trailing a stream of entangling ribbons in your wake. Also, it provides opponents a handhold, similar to how long hair does. I know from several harrowing days at a con how horrible it is for your mobility to have people stepping on your train all the time (never again ) so I guess, in battle, the less places where people could grab, the safer you are.

I guess if you wanted to add in a bit of east Asian flavor, Hakama pants could look like a skirt, and were commonly worn with samurai armor, but I'm going specifically for western-style armor here, and hakama with plate just doesn't look right...

[Rhynn]

I suppose one could also try slits at the side of a chainmail skirt, which would allow you to run better (apparently) but just the sheer weight is going to be a problem; when moving your legs, you really don't want heavy stuff on your knees because it means you have to work so much harder.

All armor is heavy, and you need to be well conditioned to wear it for long periods of time while doing something. Knee-length (and sometimes longer) mail hauberks were the standard armor of knights for a couple hundred years. They could be heavy (especially with all the quilted under-armor) but being impervious to swords was pretty much worth it.

A mail skirt won't have the weight on your knees/legs anyway, though; a hauberk's going to be hanging off your shoulders (ouch), mitigated by a sturdy belt tightly buckled around your waist. Just a skirt would hang off your belt too, most likely. It will occasionally rest against your legs when you move, sure, but it's not going to be anything like wearing cuisses, greaves, and sabatons and lifting them on every step.

What about short in the front, and long in the back, or split in the front? If the skirt was meant to provide thigh and leg protection, that's now gone, but you generally wouldn't have trouble going forwards, though stepping backwards with too-long a hem might still be a problem.

Plenty of mail hauberks were split in front. Greaves were often worn with them anyway.

Why would you have the skirt longer than knee or half-shin, anyway? Like, for what possible reason, if you've chosen to wear a skirt on a battlefield, would you intentionally make it so long it's possible to step on it? Make it shorter and that solves the issue right there.

Put a skirt over a suit of harness (worn over the leg armor and under the fauld) and you've got your feminine touch, so far as that goes... won't look much different from a surcoat, I think.

Late harness parts for reference.

[No brains]

Oneris: One idea i had that could help to make armor look feminine with a skirt without endangering the wearer is to just tie a pareo around the waist. It will look good long enough to make your first impressions in a march or before a fight, and with the first good tug from anyone, it just comes undone and get out of the way.

Incanur: You keep saying people survive gunshots all the time. I have a couple of questions:

Is it that people survive gunshots without intervention or do they survive with close medical attention? In the event someone gets medical attention, then a proficient doctor might be able to tell that their patient has something else wrong with them as the poison takes effect. If that's the case then a poisoned bullet may not be any more effective.

I'm also curious about what kinds of gunshots people survive. Is it shots from all weapons? Are they shots to a specific area of the body? Is it even that such a large number of people have been shot that even a small surviving percentage still make a pretty big group?

I don't doubt you personally, it's just that even one gun is supposed to be good for killing people. What you say goes against what I've been taught and I think I don't know the big picture.

[Mike_G]

Is it that people survive gunshots without intervention or do they survive with close medical attention? In the event someone gets medical attention, then a proficient doctor might be able to tell that their patient has something else wrong with them as the poison takes effect. If that's the case then a poisoned bullet may not be any more effective.

I'm also curious about what kinds of gunshots people survive. Is it shots from all weapons? Are they shots to a specific area of the body? Is it even that such a large number of people have been shot that even a small surviving percentage still make a pretty big group?

I don't doubt you personally, it's just that even one gun is supposed to be good for killing people. What you say goes against what I've been taught and I think I don't know the big picture.

Gunshots kill by destroying a vital organ, in which case you are probably screwed, or by blood loss, in which case you may recover if treated.

Medical treatment has gotten a lot better. Quick intervention can save a large percentage of gunshot victims, with varying levels of disability. What matters most is where you were hit, then the velocity of the round, then the size of the round. Obviously, if you get hit in the head or torso, you stand a good chance of major organ damage, and death. A hit to a limb probably won't kill you unless you bleed out from a damaged artery, or die later of infection and complication.

High velocity rounds, like most rifle rounds, do a huge amount of damage to tissue from cavitation (the shock wave caused by the bullet's passage) and can shatter bones, making big, awful messy wounds. Handgun ammo is low velocity, lower energy and does a lot less damage.

So, yes, there are a lot of factors, but fatality from gunshots wounds probably averages around 25-30% over all wounds. A contaminated bullet would increase overall lethality, but wouldn't help in battle. The guy will either be incapacitated by the wound or he won't. I don't care if the guy I shot dies next week or goes home to live a happy life. I care that he dropped his weapon and stopped trying to kill me. Poison bullets don't help me any.

They might make the guy's buddies hate me more and kill me instead of taking me prisoner, or make them fear me so much that they keep fighting instead of surrendering, meaning that even after they are defeated, I still lose men mopping up.

[Incanur]

Is it that people survive gunshots without intervention or do they survive with close medical attention?

In the present, thousands of folks in the United States each year likely survive gunshot wounds without medical treatment according to this source. It estimates gunshot-wound mortality at around 8% within the U.S., with only half of those wounded seeking medical treatment. This text paints similar picture, arguing that self-treatment is effective for many gunshot wounds in the U.S. today. There's a lot of guesswork involved so it's hard to say for sure. Historically we have various accounts soldiers that survived gunshot wounds with little or no medical help, though again statistics on those untreated are inherently hard to come by. In a text published 1590, Sir John Smythe wrote the following:

For that by common experience it hath been seene in all skirmishes and great encounters, that for euerie one that hath been slaine dead in the field by the shot of Mosquer or Harquebuze, there haue been foure that haue not died by the hurts of such weapo~s of fire, although some of them haue remained euer after maimed, and some not.

Smythe was arguing for the bow against the gun, but he did have considerable experience in the field and this claim matches the various accounts of 16th-century soldiers surviving bullets that I've read. Blaise de Monluc, admittedly with quality medical attention, survived various bullet wounds including a shot to the face, though it left him disfigured. Military surgeon Dr. Martin L. Fackler says that shots to roughly 80% of targets on the body wouldn't be fatal, but obviously it depends on the round as well.

In the event someone gets medical attention, then a proficient doctor might be able to tell that their patient has something else wrong with them as the poison takes effect. If that's the case then a poisoned bullet may not be any more effective.

The Nazi logic was that every wound from poisoned munitions would have to be treated as a mortal one, thus killing more enemy soldiers and tying up more enemy medical resources. As Mike_G's analysis suggests, poisoned bullets mainly make sense from a Nazi total-war mindset. (Depleted uranium is arguably a sort of poison, but that could be a touchy political topic and in any case it's slower-acting than aconitine.) While there are toxins that incapacitate within a minute or two at the right dose - curare can kill dogs in about a minute according to this source - administering them by bullet is either beyond current technical ability or just too expensive to be worth it, especially given the PR nightmare.

Moving away from bullets, I think poisoned arrows and darts at times did grant a meaningful military advantage. But even with a projectile that's less lethal on its own and more suited to delivering poison, good poison isn't easy to mass produce. In 17th-century Makassar we have an example of poison as major military industry. For most historical militaries, though, arrow poison apparently wasn't worth the economic and social costs.

[Brother Oni]

Which brings up the point of damaged skirts and how opponents could use your skirts against you. A couple of sword slashes, and you'd be trailing a stream of entangling ribbons in your wake. Also, it provides opponents a handhold, similar to how long hair does.

If your opponent is reaching down to grab your skirt, it opens his head up for you to smack with your sword (much better to just tackle you to the ground). Similarly grabbing hold of someone's hair ties up their hand, exposing their ribs (and armpit if you have a stabbing implement).

While handholds are an issue (or at least things where your opponent's weapon can catch), they need to provide either a leverage or immobilisation advantage or else you've opened yourself for an attack.

I guess if you wanted to add in a bit of east Asian flavor, Hakama pants could look like a skirt, and were commonly worn with samurai armor, but I'm going specifically for western-style armor here, and hakama with plate just doesn't look right...

Are you mistaking the haidate (thigh guard) for a hakama? While the hakama is worn, it's tied down under all the armour, much like padding for western armour, so isn't really visible.

There are some styles of cuisses that resemble a skirt, but a mid thigh length mail shirt could ostensibly pass for one:

Spoiler: That's gonna need some oiling afterwards

Show

While there are toxins that incapacitate within a minute or two at the right dose - curare can kill dogs in about a minute according to this source - administering them by bullet is either beyond current technical ability or just too expensive to be worth it, especially given the PR nightmare.

Especially since if you're using banned weaponry anyway, there are much more efficient chemicals and delivery vectors.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I'm in agreement with you on use as a terror and assassination tool, I'm just disagreeing with on its usefulness in a firefight.

Actually, you're not disagreeing with me on it's usefulness in a firefight.

To actually get the poison into the targets system is difficult - the example I cited would have been on an unsuspecting target at a distance of a couple of inches at most, if not actually in contact with the victim. To use a mid-high velocity projectile from a firearm in a combat situation, where the target is aware of your presence and attempting to minimise their vulnerability, would run the risk of it missing, hitting body armour, passing straight through without dispersing any of the toxin, or the heat of propellant ignition denaturing the toxin and rendering it less effective or useless. And if you're a sniper, chances are you've got the time to choose your impact site and the weapon so as to cause an immediately or rapidly lethal injury with a single shot, so you don't really need them.

That's not to say it couldn't be done, and considering the KGB had the example I cited in the 70s, I wouldn't like to think about what the various secret services around the world have these days, but the cost and effort involved would almost certainly outweigh the capabilities.

But the original question was: Are they plausible? Not only are they plausible, there's examples of them being used.

The follow up question is: Are they practical in all realistic circumstances (so excluding a sudden emergence and attack of vampires, werewolves, zombies or tentacled gribbly things from outer space/R'lyeh/the Dungeon Dimensions/place local to you that you'd like to denigrate )? That would be a massive no.

[Spiryt]

As far as 'skirts' go, there are sources, or even surviving originals (I think? will try to find) of something skirt like being quite popular with full white, usually 'Maximilian' armor in the Renaissance.

Spoiler

Show

I'm not the one to say if they, especially longer ones were ever considered 'practical' or, more probably, just decoration of more representational foot harness.