Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XVI

[No brains]

On exsanguination/regeneration, can the wing-feet's flesh regenerate entirely missing bits of flesh? I thought I had heard that gunshots can produce a 'permanent cavity' where flesh isn't just torn, but pushed out of place entirely. If my understanding of this is true, then any automatic weapon would be excellent for making the monsters bleed because it effectively nullifies their healing by taking away flesh for them to knit back together. The mass removed and the rate of fire combined could remove as much flesh as a severed forearm.

[MReav]

How good/bad is the modern M4 and the M16? Reliability, combat effectiveness, etc. The main guy who talks to me about this stuff calls them crap, but he comes across to me as arrogant and opinionated, so I take his statements with a grain of salt.

[Mike_G]

The M16 got a bad reputation when it was first adopted. It did jam a lot in early use. Part of this was the fact that it was designed to use ammo with very clean burning propellant, and cheaper ammo was used. Part of the problem was that some troops were not issued proper cleaning equipment or trained in cleaning the weapon, and it had to be kept cleaner than the older weapons they were used to.

These issues have been addressed. The M16/M4 does need to be kept clean. All weapons do, but the M16 is less forgiving than (for example) the AK-47.

It's very accurate compared to other modern rifles. It's light, it's pretty maneuverable (esp the shorter M4) and the rounds are moving fast enough to punch through most body armor and a lot of cover, like walls, car doors, etc.

So, it's a good gun when you maintain it. It's not a good gun if you drag it through the mud.

[Galloglaich]

The M16 got a bad reputation when it was first adopted. It did jam a lot in early use. Part of this was the fact that it was designed to use ammo with very clean burning propellant, and cheaper ammo was used. Part of the problem was that some troops were not issued proper cleaning equipment or trained in cleaning the weapon, and it had to be kept cleaner than the older weapons they were used to.

These issues have been addressed. The M16/M4 does need to be kept clean. All weapons do, but the M16 is less forgiving than (for example) the AK-47.

It's very accurate compared to other modern rifles. It's light, it's pretty maneuverable (esp the shorter M4) and the rounds are moving fast enough to punch through most body armor and a lot of cover, like walls, car doors, etc.

So, it's a good gun when you maintain it. It's not a good gun if you drag it through the mud.

I got kicked off of military.com for getting in an argument with a Special Forces captain about this - it's a touchy subject!

When I was in during the 80's the M-16's we had jammed a lot, to an alarming extent. I've been told not to say that word though the correct term is 'stoppage' since you could usually clear it by working the bolt. But it stopped shooting. The M-60 was really bad too. We were jealous of the Germans who were sometimes using the range with us. I was a medic and we could go to the range almost every week if we wanted to, it made for an easy day and I liked to shoot so I was at a lot of ranges. The M-16's at that point seemed to jam (sorry have a stoppage) almost every other time you shot through a clip, and this was mostly just semi-auto shooting.

But these were M-16 and M-16A1, we didn't have the A2 in my unit when I was in. They say the M2 was better and the M4 is a lot better. To me the fundamental design flaw was still there though (the gas and burnt powder getting ejected into the bolt assembly). I was also told at the time that we had newer rifles in the armory which would be issued for wartime. I know the ones we had in boot camp were very old and not intended for combat (they were already too worn out).

And we definitely cleaned the crap out of those rifles, we were constantly cleaning them to the point I'd call 'immaculate'. There was a 'gotcha' in that cleaning process too: you had to line up a washer in the extractor pin a certain way which if you didn't do it right, would also cause "stoppages".

I've shot AK-47s and while there are definitely noticeably different quality versions of those (more on that in a second), I've very rarely seen an AK have a stoppage, usually due to very substandard ammo (reloads). I'd say most of them were not as accurate as the M-16. The M-16 you could easily hit man-sized pop-up targets out to about 200 meters, like almost every time unless you were an idiot, and you could hit 300 -400 meters targets pretty consistently if you were in a supported (i.e. leaning on something) firing position.

I'm talking regular run of the mill dumb ass recruits here not Green Berets or Army pistol and rifle team snipers or anything. Even the basic infantry seemed to shoot better than the rest of us. People who come from deep rural areas who grew up hunting a lot also seemed to be almost twice as good of shots as your regular basic soldier (myself included).

With the AK the range on most of them seemed to be more realistically around 150 meters for the 'very easy' range and it dropped off rapidly after about 250 meters. The exception is that the really good AK's (Russian, East German, or Czech made) seemed to be almost as accurate as an M-16. Most AK's floating around in the US are Chinese or Romanian made and they are very 'loose'. And I'm talking about the 7.62 x 39 mm Ak's not the 5.5mm caliber ones I never got to shoot one of those.

The German G-3's and the FN-FAL's that we sometimes got to play with seemed to be very accurate and very hard hitting, though with that heavy round you had to compensate more for the drop at longer ranges. We shot a hole through both sides of a Kevlar helmet at 400 meters with a G3 one time. Which sucked because right up to that point the German conscripts were willing to trade anything for a Kevlar helmet (they still had the steel pots back then) but after that they weren't interested.

G

[Galloglaich]

I'd also add, this is one of the major flaws in movies and action TV shows and cop shows and so on; they always show the good guys running away while generic thugs or heavies shoot at them with rifles from across the street and miss (usually with sparks miraculously bouncing off of thin balcony rails and so on). Ok if the guy has a small revolver or a min-uzi or a Mac 10, I can see somebody getting lucky and being missed. Or if it's somebody who has barely ever shot a gun. But if it's supposed to be some 'heavy' with military or long hard core criminal experience, i.e. somebody who HAS shot a gun more than a few times, shooting at somebody with a rifle within the range of a city block they really shouldn't miss very many of their shots, maybe they miss 20%? Just a wild guess. But most of the shots would hit. Your hero's would be messed up bad, laying around thinking about the next life. If you can't shoot somebody with just about any rifle at that range you are way down the list in terms of skill. And rifle shots are devastating, much more likely to kill and maim than pistols.

The other things, regarding jamming and 'stoppages', from my experience the AK is really unusual in how reliable it is - most automatics (rifles or pistols) have stoppages especially when shooting a lot. And especially if they aren't kept immaculately clean, using the right kind of ammunition, the right kind of magazines etc. Fancy magazines like they often use in movies, with drums and extra mag's taped on to the bottom and so on, contribute drastically to jams. Usually if you are shooting say 100 rounds from an automatic you are going to see a jam. Some automatic pistols will jam every 5 or 10 shots. This is another thing you rarely see in movies.

Finally they never show you how extremely hot the barrels get with just a few rounds shot. I often see movies where the guy is holding the barrel of a gun after firing multiple clips, that thing is like a frying pan left on the stove on high for 5 minutes after you shoot a couple of clips. Even more so with the bigger caliber guns. This is an inherent limitation on automatic weapons, you can't shoot clip after clip after clip. The barrel will be smoking and after shooting a few hundred rounds, it will start to distort - your aim will be off and it may blow up in your face. That's why light machine guns (and heavy machine guns) are designed with quick change barrels. You have to change the barrels like every 3 or 4 belts from what I remember. Not too many at any rate.

Here is a good depiction of an M-60 being fired to the extreme limit, apparently finishing off a worn out barrel (1500 rounds!) until the barrel gets red hot and actually starts a fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAwrmOapb4

G

[Mike_G]

I joined the Marines in 1986 and they had just switched to the M16A2. It was fairly reliable. I never dealt with the A1 or the plain old no suffix M16, but everything I've heard seems to indicate they were worse.

The A2 had a burst limiter, which helped keep the rate of fire down and did a lot to prevent burning out barrels, using up all your ammo and building up too much residue in the weapon, so the lower fire rate alone made the weapon more reliable.

We also short loaded the magazines, 28 rounds in a 30 round magazine, 18 in a 20 round magazine, to help prevent failures to load. I'm told this isn't standard practice anymore. But I don't hear many stories about modern grunts hating the weapon like you get from Vietnam era vets, so it seems they've worked out most of the bugs.

[MReav]

Thank you guys, this has been very informative.

[Galloglaich]

The New York Times did a video about my buddy Jake Norwood's fencing tournament earlier this year, which is going kind of semi-viral

http://io9.com/heres-why-longsword-f...ort-1635406974

G

[Yora]

Assuming you have your common ninja/assassin type guy sneaking up on a guard with a knife in hand. How would he actually kill that guard quickly, quietly, and preferably relatively cleanly?

The common movie methods are slitting the throat, which I would assume gets blood all over your own hands and arms; or stabbing the guy in the chest, presumedly into the heart, but that would mean the knife would have to go right through the ribs. Both seem pretty unreliable.
Might work on a sentry on patrol, but I very much doubt you could do it undetected with other people being around within 10 meters or so.

[MReav]

Assuming you have your common ninja/assassin type guy sneaking up on a guard with a knife in hand. How would he actually kill that guard quickly, quietly, and preferably relatively cleanly?

The common movie methods are slitting the throat, which I would assume gets blood all over your own hands and arms; or stabbing the guy in the chest, presumedly into the heart, but that would mean the knife would have to go right through the ribs. Both seem pretty unreliable.
Might work on a sentry on patrol, but I very much doubt you could do it undetected with other people being around within 10 meters or so.

Check this out.

[Mike_G]

Check this out.

That is pretty awesome.

There's not a good way to knife somebody and not get blood all over you. The approved method is to approach from behind, clap a hand over the sentry's mouth while pulling his head back, stab your knife into the side of his neck, and then rip it out the front. This is pretty much guaranteed to kill him, and he won't be able to scream without a voicebox. It will spray blood all over the place, so you may need a change of clothes before going to a nice restaurant.

A stab that doesn't kill quickly leaves a person pretty well able to move and fight and make noise, though.

I've heard that a thrust up into the brain from behind the jaw doesn't bleed much and kills instantly, but that's not something I've seen or trained for. It seems plausible, and fits the idea of an assassin quite well.

Dead people don't bleed much, but dying people bleed a lot.

[Roxxy]

I read something on another gaming site, and I'd like to know how much truth there is to it. The assertion is that a man who fights with sword and shield typically has a stance with the off hand foot forward and main hand foot back, and moves the main hand foot forward when he swings. The power comes from a lever action in his hips and the torque from his body twisting. If a woman tries to do this, she will be less effective, partly because her hips aren't shaped for that sort of thing. What a woman needs to do is start off with the main hand foot forward and off hand foot back, and move the off hand foot forward when she swings, but twist in the same direction the man is twisting even though her feet are in the opposite positions. Apparently, this takes better advantage of where a woman's center of gravity is and how her hips are shaped, allowing her to put a lot more power into her strike than if she was using the same technique as a man. Neither the man nor the woman is primarily using upper body strength to power their strikes. Now, I don't know physics or anatomy well at all, so I'm not qualified to judge whether or not these assertions are true. What say you guys?

[Spiryt]

I read something on another gaming site, and I'd like to know how much truth there is to it. The assertion is that a man who fights with sword and shield typically has a stance with the off hand foot forward and main hand foot back, and moves the main hand foot forward when he swings. The power comes from a lever action in his hips and the torque from his body twisting. If a woman tries to do this, she will be less effective, partly because her hips aren't shaped for that sort of thing. What a woman needs to do is start off with the main hand foot forward and off hand foot back, and move the off hand foot forward when she swings, but twist in the same direction the man is twisting even though her feet are in the opposite positions. Apparently, this takes better advantage of where a woman's center of gravity is and how her hips are shaped, allowing her to put a lot more power into her strike than if she was using the same technique as a man. Neither the man nor the woman is primarily using upper body strength to power their strikes. Now, I don't know physics or anatomy well at all, so I'm not qualified to judge whether or not these assertions are true. What say you guys?

I would say this is some weirdly contrived theory.

Watched decent amount of woman MMA, boxing etc. and no woman appears to be striking differently than a man, as far as fundamentals go.

Womans 'centre of gravity' won't differ so much from male, different body shapes will makes way bigger difference than sex.

Classic Jack Dempsey's (several times HW boxing chamion) book

https://archive.org/details/ChampionshipFighting

explains quite neatly some basic striking mechanics.

That in the first place, striking is the transfer of weight, so yeah, generally one will be stepping IN THE DIRECTION of strike, to actually create collision with target.

Of course, it get's much more complicated, especially with the fact that you don't have to strike anyone very hard with SWORD, of course.

[Brother Oni]

How is the regeneration supposed to work? Do wounds heal almost instantly when the pieces of tissue are joined back together? In that case you probably would need outright dismemberment.

As I understand it, the tissue knits back together in an accelerated version of normal healing, hence why exsanguination works as it still needs 'raw materials' to regenerate.

If I wanted to kill a troll and fire wasn't an option I'd want to use ammunition with a large serrated head. The troll would heal over the arrow but the head would cut its insides whenever it moved, so it would get progressively more disabled due to internal bleeding with no outlet for the resulting blood. This would eventually kill it with very acceptable risk to its slayers.

Wouldn't the healed flesh simply immobilise the head in place? My wife had a sharp piece of glass in her knee for years with no internal bleeding and there's stories of big mean critters (boars, bears and the like) with arrows and other broken weapons sticking out of their hides.

On exsanguination/regeneration, can the wing-feet's flesh regenerate entirely missing bits of flesh? I thought I had heard that gunshots can produce a 'permanent cavity' where flesh isn't just torn, but pushed out of place entirely. If my understanding of this is true, then any automatic weapon would be excellent for making the monsters bleed because it effectively nullifies their healing by taking away flesh for them to knit back together. The mass removed and the rate of fire combined could remove as much flesh as a severed forearm.

Over time yes, but as you've said, displaced flesh is just pushed out of place and it will spring back eventually. In normal animals, the time this takes can be lethal, but not necessarily for our critter. As discussed earlier, large calibre automatic weapons would indeed be the go to tool, but I was asking about melee weapons.

I would say this is some weirdly contrived theory.

I'm with Spiryt on this one. It sounds like it's over emphasising the difference between male and female anatomy and underestimating the damage a sharp sword can do. A simple wrist flick can be enough to cause injury or death if placed well.

[JustSomeGuy]

Very, very briefly: women's anatomy is less efficient than men's at transmitting force from the torso and hips through the limbs, because of their wider pelvis, the arm hangs at an exaggerated angle through the elbow (so they don't rub or catch) and similarly at the knee (hips being wider but the feet being the same, under the centre of balance) so the knee has a greater lateral angle too. These create inefficiencies during movement which become noticeable at the extremes. Also due to hormonal differences they suffer a significantly lower amount of muscle mass, particularly around the shoulder girdle (apparently this area is more sensitive to testosterone, but that sounds fishy to me) and a less efficient nervous system, which inhibits true maximal force production. I forget why, but i'll check it out after work tomorrow and update if anyone really cares.

It is notable that there is considerable overlap between the sexes (the best women are ahead of the worst men, and usually the mediocre men too), and that women have the same anatomical structure as men so the optimum technique for a man is the same optimum technique for q woman (can't think of any counter examples, but sod's law says there has to be at least 1!).

[Brother Oni]

On a separate note, I found this photo that I felt was worth sharing:

Spoiler: WW1 Lancer

Show

Information is that this was a WW1 German cavalryman carrying a Model 1893 lance made from rolled steel. Apparently the British still also had lancers, although their lances had bamboo handles and were much lighter.

Presumably this was at the start of the War before trench warfare really set in.

Even in WW2, the Germans still made use of draft horses. During the aftermath of the Falaise Pocket, an American patrol found a dead team of horses that were still attached to the artillery piece they were pulling. Apparently the bridles and other gear were of the highest quality leather with all brass well polished, so obviously the horses and their kit were well looked after and they weren't random horses drafted in from random nearby farms.

[Storm Bringer]

that pics mid to late war, not early. the trooper has a steel helmet and a gas mask, and both those were brought in around 1916.

cavalry remained on the books of every army in WW1, simply because their was no other option for fast manoeuvre units. they did good service in the early, fluid stages, and continued to serve well on the eastern front and In the mid east, where the force concentrations were lower and their was space to manoeuvre. they tried a few times on the western front, but barbed wire and MGs just stopped and slaughter any mounted troops they met.

Spoiler

Show

speaking of good service, this is a wonderful clip of a cavalry charge in 1917.

The unit in question, the Australian Light Horse, was a mounted infantry unit, I.e. they moved on horses and got off to fight on foot. Most British cavalry was in theory trained to do this, but the old horse regiments kept hankering after the old days of mounted charges. The German advisors instance that "they wont Charge" is based on their normal tactics of, well not charging. Also, note the break down of fire discipline as the Turkish troops loose track of the range and just switch to panic fire, get-lead-down-range mode

in 1914, motor vehicles were still pretty uncommon, and the supporting infrastructure of petrol stations, garages and mechanics hadn't developed outside the of the big cites. they were also not that much more capable than the horse drawn vehicles they were replacing, and not really rugged enough for service life. every army dragooned up civvie trucks for logistics, but the wastage rate was something terrible, so all armys depended on horse drawn wagons for supply needs.

even in ww2, most of the german army was reliant on horse drawn transport, with only the mechanised units having enough motor vehicles to meet their supply needs. only the british and American armies had really finished mechanising by 1940, most of the other armies were still using horses for supplies.

[Brother Oni]

that pics mid to late war, not early. the trooper has a steel helmet and a gas mask, and both those were brought in around 1916.

Thanks for the corrections. The main point I'm surprised about is that the lance remained in official use until that late.

Spoiler

Show

speaking of good service, this is a wonderful clip of a cavalry charge in 1917.

The unit in question, the Australian Light Horse, was a mounted infantry unit, I.e. they moved on horses and got off to fight on foot. Most British cavalry was in theory trained to do this, but the old horse regiments kept hankering after the old days of mounted charges. The German advisors instance that "they wont Charge" is based on their normal tactics of, well not charging. Also, note the break down of fire discipline as the Turkish troops loose track of the range and just switch to panic fire, get-lead-down-range mode

I can just imagine how fired up the Light Horse were when they finally closed with the enemy after 2800m of bombardment and rifle/MG fire, unable to fire back.

I remember a WW2 incident where Polish mounted infantry charged and dispersed German infantry and were generally doing quite well until a couple of German armoured cars turned up: Charge at Krojanty 1939.

[Storm Bringer]

Thanks for the corrections. The main point I'm surprised about is that the lance remained in official use until that late.

armies are conservative beasts, as a rule, and like I said, away form the trenches, the lance still got some use.

The lances looked good on parade, gave the unit something to brag about, and gave a mounted trooper the reach to stab someone lying down, which swords did not.

I can just imagine how fired up the Light Horse were when they finally closed with the enemy after 2800m of bombardment and rifle/MG fire, unable to fire back.

it's not just in ww1 the "unable to fire back" thing was around.


in the flinklock era, it was semi-common that when a unit was sent to storm a fortress, the troopers would not only me made to unload their muskets, but in some cases had to hand over their flints so they could not fire, and so had to push on into melee. troops with loaded weapons tended to stop and fire back, which robbed the charge of momentum, and left the troops milling around, in a firefight with entrenched troops, at short range.


by the time they reached the walls, they were pretty much out of control. the convention of the era that they assaulting troops had the right to ransack the place if they took it was more a recognition by the army commanders that they couldn't stop them ransacking the place without a munity.

[PersonMan]

Also: WWI wasn't only trench warfare. The Eastern Front was a thing, and often much more mobile than the western one, with a lot of advancing and retreating being done. If you can actually flank people, then cavalry can move to run into and enter melee with troops lying down to fire without exposing themselves to lots of fire.

[Galloglaich]

Also: WWI wasn't only trench warfare. The Eastern Front was a thing, and often much more mobile than the western one, with a lot of advancing and retreating being done. If you can actually flank people, then cavalry can move to run into and enter melee with troops lying down to fire without exposing themselves to lots of fire.

That's a really good point, we tend to look at WW I (as so much of our other history) somewhat understandably from an English point of view, but a great deal of the fighting on the Eastern Front consisted of massive cavalry battles and raids. Just as down in the Alps a lot of the fighting was based on causing avalanches...

G

[Brother Oni]

That's a really good point, we tend to look at WW I (as so much of our other history) somewhat understandably from an English point of view, but a great deal of the fighting on the Eastern Front consisted of massive cavalry battles and raids. Just as down in the Alps a lot of the fighting was based on causing avalanches...

That said, the Eastern Front also had some brutal meatgrinder battles which matched the death count of famous Western Front battles like the Somme - Gallipoli, especially the landings which are remembered every year on ANZAC Day.

[warty goblin]

Change of topic, but here's something that folks might find interesting, an account of the archaeology surrounding a fortress sacked and burned in 800 BC. Scroll to the end for some nifty sketches of spiked maces.

[Yora]

An injury related question, which obviously I really don't want to google:

What kind of battle injury could cause blindness in one eye while otherwise leaving the eye mostly intact. It's something you often see in movies and fantasy art, but does that actually happen or is that just taking artistic liberties because the real thing would be too gruesome to show?

Also, how much would blindness in one eye affect an archer? Rifles are aimed with only one eye, but I've read that good and fast archer don't line up the arrow but "aim" primarily by muscle memory and relying on their eyes to keep track of relative positions of themselves, the environment, any enemies, and how fast and in which direction everything is moving.
If you don't stand still to aim, you'd have a lot more head movement, which might possibly give you sufficient paralax rangefinding to compensate to some extend for lack of binocular vision.
In close combat, a blind eye should get you a pretty significant blind spot, but would that make you unable to work as a professional soldier in a premodern army?

[DrewID]

Also, how much would blindness in one eye affect an archer? Rifles are aimed with only one eye, but I've read that good and fast archer don't line up the arrow but "aim" primarily by muscle memory and relying on their eyes to keep track of relative positions of themselves, the environment, any enemies, and how fast and in which direction everything is moving.
If you don't stand still to aim, you'd have a lot more head movement, which might possibly give you sufficient paralax rangefinding to compensate to some extend for lack of binocular vision.
In close combat, a blind eye should get you a pretty significant blind spot, but would that make you unable to work as a professional soldier in a premodern army?

Had a good friend in years past who had only one eye. He hunted (rifle, not bow), was excellent at softball, did all sorts of things well that I would have thought would be hindered by the loss of depth perception. Once had a very interesting discussion for half an hour or more (we were driving somewhere) when he wanted me to explain how binocular vision worked ("Do you see two images or what?) Try and explain THAT to someone who has never had it (technically, he lost an eye when he was one year old, but he had no conscious memory of binocular vision).

Having said that, I would think that archery would be slightly more affected, because you have to account for arrow drop more frequently and to a greater degree than most riflemen, and lacking binocular vision, it would be more difficult to get a rapid estimate of range to target. But a sufficiently skilled archer would probably unconsciously perform a series of estimations along the line of "OK, that's a man-sized target, but it appears so-high when I sight it that it's probably about so-far away, so I need to elevate so-much."

DrewID

[Mr. Mask]

You are faced with tank traps, ditches (that a tank can't cross), barbed wire and mines (AP and AT). You need to bypass these obstacles and make an assault with infantry and tanks, with some air and artillery support. What is the standard procedure for clearing these obstacles for/during an assault?

More specifically, is each obstacle handled separately, or is the method typically used able to deal with several obstacles simultaneously (such as hitting the general area with artillery bombardments)?

[Broken Crown]

You are faced with tank traps, ditches (that a tank can't cross), barbed wire and mines (AP and AT). You need to bypass these obstacles and make an assault with infantry and tanks, with some air and artillery support. What is the standard procedure for clearing these obstacles for/during an assault?

More specifically, is each obstacle handled separately, or is the method typically used able to deal with several obstacles simultaneously (such as hitting the general area with artillery bombardments)?

The Allied forces in the Normandy Landings used a wide variety of specialized vehicles for clearing and/or crossing obstacles. That was a big enough operation to make the investment in specialized equipment worthwhile; depending on the scale of your assault, you may not have the resources to do this. In that case, artillery is good for dealing with barbed wire, ditches, and some mines and tank traps, provided you don't mind making a mess.

[Mathis]

I was of the impression that artillery did just about nothing to lines of barbed wire? Wasn't that a major issue during the first world war? Artillery strikes would just jumble the wire a bit but it would still be just as deadly and just as much of a hindrance?

[Brother Oni]

What kind of battle injury could cause blindness in one eye while otherwise leaving the eye mostly intact. It's something you often see in movies and fantasy art, but does that actually happen or is that just taking artistic liberties because the real thing would be too gruesome to show?

Any injury to the face can cause damage to one eye, be it a slash that's sufficiently deflected by the skull/helmet but not be fatal or an arrow to the face. There's a couple famous examples of an arrow just taking out one eye - the Bayeux Tapestry of the Battle of Hastings where Harold is alleged to have been killed by an arrow to the eye is one; another is Xiahou Dun of the Three Kingdoms fame (part of his myth is his pulling the arrow out with the eye impaled on it and then swallowing his eye due to the belief systems of the time).

Also, how much would blindness in one eye affect an archer? Rifles are aimed with only one eye, but I've read that good and fast archer don't line up the arrow but "aim" primarily by muscle memory and relying on their eyes to keep track of relative positions of themselves, the environment, any enemies, and how fast and in which direction everything is moving.

Depends on whether it's the dominant eye or not. Aiming with just your non-dominant eye is very hard since you can't sight down the arrow or line up the string with the bow to ensure a straight release thus may necessitate finding new a new style of shooting (new anchor points, changing arms, etc).

I've never actually tried closing one eye while shooting so the next time I'm down the range, I'll try both my dominant and non-dominant eye and see how it affects my accuracy/precision.

Having said that, I would think that archery would be slightly more affected, because you have to account for arrow drop more frequently and to a greater degree than most riflemen, and lacking binocular vision, it would be more difficult to get a rapid estimate of range to target. But a sufficiently skilled archer would probably unconsciously perform a series of estimations along the line of "OK, that's a man-sized target, but it appears so-high when I sight it that it's probably about so-far away, so I need to elevate so-much."

Direct fire would probably be unaffected (subject to which eye is lost), but indirect fire would be significantly affected since it's very hard to work out where your arrows have fallen and adjust your aim/draw accordingly. You could probably still get it in the same sort of area, just that it's a much bigger area.

I was of the impression that artillery did just about nothing to lines of barbed wire? Wasn't that a major issue during the first world war? Artillery strikes would just jumble the wire a bit but it would still be just as deadly and just as much of a hindrance?

While you're right that artillery fire was of limited use against barbed wire, it can still blow holes in the wire and open up gaps.

[Yora]

Barbed wire is made of steel and thus very strong, but also very thin, which allows the pressure wave from an explosion to very effectively move around it rather than tearing it apart, like it would a large plate of steel. The wooden posts would likely be destroyed and the barbed wire pushed around, but it is unlikely to rip. Artillery shells do very little against it.

One solution is an explosive device called the Bangalore Torpedo, which was designed specifically do deal with that problem. It's basically a long pipe filled with explosives, and you can plug several ones together to get a longer one of any length you need. It's then pushed along the ground and detonated, creating a long and narrow crater. Not sure what explosive they use for it, or if it's a special one that does articularly well against the wires, but it's supposed to be pretty effective at carving a path through obstacles. Could probably take care of landmines as well.