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

[Mike_G]

This is a rather neatly-severed bone from Wisby. I may be wrong but I think that may be a femur.




G

The long bone on the left is an ulna (forearm bone, severed near the wrist.). The one on the right, with both ends intact, is a tibia. (it's upside down.The projection at the top is the bump on the outside of your ankle.)

[Beleriphon]

G: To be honest, I have been trying to work out a way for SWAT tactics to make sense for a while now, as I wanted to have a SWAT-inspired unit for a game. Unfortunately, actually thinking about the tactics instead of making excuses like they'll never face hard resistance, there's simply very little gain for a lot of unnecessary risk, and downright inexcusable doctrine like how they clear closets. But instead of thinking about how that closet method is pointlessly killing one of your own guys, you prefer to believe SWAT can do no wrong, and come to the most extraordinary claims for how little one of the lives of your operatives are worth. It is very hypocritical to accuse me of being one-sided in my assessment, when you have said literally nothing for the advantages of taking cover instead of venturing forth.

Mask, keep in mind that SWAT Teams aren't military. They're the rough equivalent to civilian police forces as the SEALs, SAS, KSK or JTF2 are to regular military. Regular military use the same tactics as SWAT teams to clear a building, but at the same time they're also fighting soldiers or other armed combatants who have at least some semblance of formal training. SWAT teams usually operate against armed and barricade civilians. SWAT teams are neither equipped, nor trained to deal with full blown paramilitary situations.

You aren't wrong, there are plenty of situations where SWAT tactics are going to fall down, and fall down hard. But those aren't normally the scenarios SWAT teams deal with. Think of Die Hard if you will. Hans Gruber would have annihilated an actual SWAT response. Not because SWAT tactics are bad, but because they aren't at all designed to respond to that sort of scenario where perpetrators are military trained. You would send a SWAT team to deal with Russian Specnaz that are robbing a bank, but I wouldn't expect things to go well for the police force at all because the Specnaz are trained the exact same way as SWAT teams and are more than capable of handling themselves in a firefight.

For some information about such failures see the Budynnovsk Hospital Crisis. This failed for the reasons you call out. The Chechens were a trained, battle hardened force so regular tactics aren't going to work, because the situation is completely irregular. The thing that ended the crisis was negotiation because an actual assault of the building had failed completely.

Think of things another way the Mexican drug cartels have a had significant success against Mexican police in part because they treat their thugs like soldiers and train them as such. Even Mexican special forces have failed in raids against the cartels because the ground level soldiers are trained how to respond appropriately to an attack. Most terrorists or other criminals aren't though, because they don't have the time or resources to do so.

[Carl]

Mask, keep in mind that SWAT Teams aren't military. They're the rough equivalent to civilian police forces as the SEALs, SAS, KSK or JTF2 are to regular military. Regular military use the same tactics as SWAT teams to clear a building, but at the same time they're also fighting soldiers or other armed combatants who have at least some semblance of formal training. SWAT teams usually operate against armed and barricade civilians. SWAT teams are neither equipped, nor trained to deal with full blown paramilitary situations.

You aren't wrong, there are plenty of situations where SWAT tactics are going to fall down, and fall down hard. But those aren't normally the scenarios SWAT teams deal with. Think of Die Hard if you will. Hans Gruber would have annihilated an actual SWAT response. Not because SWAT tactics are bad, but because they aren't at all designed to respond to that sort of scenario where perpetrators are military trained. You would send a SWAT team to deal with Russian Specnaz that are robbing a bank, but I wouldn't expect things to go well for the police force at all because the Specnaz are trained the exact same way as SWAT teams and are more than capable of handling themselves in a firefight.

For some information about such failures see the Budynnovsk Hospital Crisis. This failed for the reasons you call out. The Chechens were a trained, battle hardened force so regular tactics aren't going to work, because the situation is completely irregular. The thing that ended the crisis was negotiation because an actual assault of the building had failed completely.

Think of things another way the Mexican drug cartels have a had significant success against Mexican police in part because they treat their thugs like soldiers and train them as such. Even Mexican special forces have failed in raids against the cartels because the ground level soldiers are trained how to respond appropriately to an attack. Most terrorists or other criminals aren't though, because they don't have the time or resources to do so.

This. Thanks for putting most of what i was trying to say across in a much better manner. The average sort SWAT deals with simply don't have the training, (and this often includes many though not all forms of terrorist/freedom fighter), to react to sudden unexpected circumstances well. And SWAT assaults are all about shock tactics intended to push the enemy completely off balance and deny them that time to think and react intelligently. But the i'd allready said this once allready.

If they go up against a well trained and equipped enemy then frankly even military special forces would struggle to pull it off without eating massive losses even if the whole thing isn't time critical because no tactic in the world makes attacking a prepared defensive position defended by well trained, equipped and supplied individual's anything less than a complete meatgrinder. History has proven this time and again in urban combat.

[Mr. Mask]

Beleriphon: Hmmm, I see your point on one hand. For say, unarmed suspects, SWAT tackling them tends to work for taking them down and getting prisoners, even if you're putting yourselves at risk. When it comes to armed terrorists or hostage situations, that's quite dangerous. Tactical units are, unfortunately, called in for some such cases (which is either where different tactics should be used, or a different unit).

Hmmm... for taking captives from less-resistant enemies, I wonder if their focus should be less on breaching and more on the combined use of gas (CS or capsaicin hydrochloride, I think would be best), rubber-pellet grenades, and rubber bullets (there was a particular model I'm thinking of, that transferred all the energy into the body--but I can't remember what it was called). If that isn't enough to take down an enemy, taking prisoners is probably not the priority (as eliminating the targets is hard enough). And if you use that from cover, you're still putting yourself at less risk, I'd think.

Currently, that method is just an idea. The immediate problems I see is that if you fail to disable a target and they get to cover, or you only partially wound a target and they can arm themselves, you might miss an opportunity to have grabbed them while they were too stunned to do anything. Wounded or missed targets taking cover would be a risk for the breaching team, who'd need to go into the room regardless to secure targets and wipe out resistance. The breaching team would use lethal weapons, as they need to be certain they can put a target down instantly if they need to and can shoot through cover. In rooms with too much cover, you may just have to use a classic SWAT breach or shoot the targets from cover with lethal weapons (if the targets seem too dangerous to detain safely). Having to carry two sets of weapons or a lethal and non-lethal team could be a bit of an issue.

This is an interesting thought, I'm going to ponder it for longer. Thanks Beleriphon!

[Knaight]

If they go up against a well trained and equipped enemy then frankly even military special forces would struggle to pull it off without eating massive losses even if the whole thing isn't time critical because no tactic in the world makes attacking a prepared defensive position defended by well trained, equipped and supplied individual's anything less than a complete meatgrinder. History has proven this time and again in urban combat.

It depends on the means of attack. An infantry attack is generally going to end poorly, but a defensive position well defended against infantry attack might well be helpless against something like artillery.

[Mr. Mask]

Well, you know what they say.

[Carl]

It depends on the means of attack. An infantry attack is generally going to end poorly, but a defensive position well defended against infantry attack might well be helpless against something like artillery.

Well obviously, i was assuming given the context of the discussion that it was a situation where they had to storm in on foot. he ability to deliver large quantities of HE and HE-Frag with great precision from delivery platforms that are hard to effectively counter is why in open field battles the value of a strong defensive position has diminished greatly. But anytime you either have too many target's, insufficiently clear intel, or an unwillingness to inflict the required collateral damage you time and again see defensive positions become complete man-shredders.

[PersonMan]

Two questions.

First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

[snowblizz]

Two questions.

First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

There already exists submersible transports (basically subs). Subs are used to insert special forces/raid teams. That's probably about where the usefulness ends. The problem is that it will be slow as heck, or visible. Check how large a modern amphibious assault vessel is and then consider it doesn't need to carry everything itself.

In the modern world you don't loot as such, but for raids look at the special forces operations. Anything bigger than that is not going to be feasible as a "raid". Big means visible, in various ways, and in the modern world that's very very difficult to avoid. Again in the modern world there's just not "loot" in the same way. What are you gonna do, jack a few Jags? Basically yes the costs are going to be too prohibitive compared to what you get. Most likely.

E.g. look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mikado

[Mr. Mask]

Some of the Marines in Iraq looted an Iraqi military base for socks. They had not been supplied enough socks. I think they might've also been low on batteries.

Armies tend to loot or requisition food, fuel, and medicine. They'll loot for whatever else they need, but those are the big ones. If they're rather bandit, they might also be gathering all the money and valuables they can, to the extent of cutting off ring fingers and removing gold teeth.

[Beleriphon]

Two questions.

First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

Sure, something the size of a ballistic missile sub could be converted to support troop delivery, although it would be cramped. This would be a short range assault vehicle rather than long range transport.

Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

Depends. Modern asset assault was done constantly during the WWII by commandos. The Devil's Brigade is a good example of the kind of things commandos did. So in terms of asset destruction a huge number of operators aren't needed, but for full a raid where the purpose is capture loot then yeah its probably not really worth it since anything truly valuable tends to be hard to find, non-portable like fancy cars, or generally unstealable with things such as bank accounts. Gold bullion and art are still good to steal, but the issue is largely one of where do you sell something that isn't intrinsically valuable.

[Tobtor]

Just posting here since some might be interested. There is a Norwegian film about the medieval period which is being released next year. It called "birkebeinerne" (the birch legs) and is based on sagas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKbnq_3gL20

The costumes seem OK. Some of the armour is too late (its set ion 1206 there shouldn't be much plate around), but at least it look medieval (and not like "The Vikings"-serie which does not look anything really).

[GraaEminense]

Oh God our reenactment community has been tearing the costumes in that movie to shreds since the first images were released. It is, to be honest, pretty bad: if you see someone with genuinely good kit you can bet they are volunteer extras from one of the reenactment groups, while most of the production kits are fantasy creations with little basis in reality.

Spoiler: Guess which one is a famous actor

Show

Not saying the movie won't be good, it may well be, but the costumes suffer from lack of funding: most are recycled from older movies.

[Tobtor]

From your statement the actor is the guy in the middle.

But compared to say; the Vikings or the majority of other "hitorical" films I find the costumes much better (though not good). For one they actually show characters with colours on their clothing... even the actor have something that look like a medieval weave beneath the leather/fur. But I commented alone on the trailer, I have now googled pictures and can see some bad stuff. But still the costumes are alot better than most of what you see in other movies. The design is more authentic (for the period) with long tunics etc

Compare with a release from the Vikings:

Spoiler: The Vikings

Show

The Birkebeiner movie seem to have a bit too much leather, and a mix of different historical costumes etc, but compared to something that must have had 100times the costume budget, I am not sorry they had a low budget...

[Brother Oni]

Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

Further to previous answers, the issue of looting ammunition was part of why NATO and Warsaw Pact countries adopted different ammunition standards, for example NATO's 7.62mm cartridge (7.62x51mm) was not compatible with the Russian 7.62mm (7.62x39mm) one, plus when NATO countries started using 5.56x45mm, the Russians had their own 5.45x39mm.

Oh God our reenactment community has been tearing the costumes in that movie to shreds since the first images were released. It is, to be honest, pretty bad: if you see someone with genuinely good kit you can bet they are volunteer extras from one of the reenactment groups, while most of the production kits are fantasy creations with little basis in reality.

When I was still doing re-enactment, the typical pay was ~£100 for a day's filming, which made it attractive to most re-enactors and the production staff got authentic costumes with trained bodies to put in them for cheap compared to the cost of hiring/making them then hiring untrained actors on top of that and showing them how to wear it properly.

[GraaEminense]

The Birkebeiner movie seem to have a bit too much leather, and a mix of different historical costumes etc, but compared to something that must have had 100times the costume budget, I am not sorry they had a low budget...

Oh, agreed: compared to countless other shows they are not doing badly at all. They do have a fair amount of decent stuff mixed in, but suffer from acute fantasy-armour-and-pointless-straps-and-belts-syndrome. It could certainly be worse, I'm just miffed that a movie based on an iconic, well documented historic event in a period we have pretty good sources on can't do better.

@Oni: Sounds reasonable, I haven't asked the guys how much they were paid.

[Mongobear]

Just curious how effective any of the various Greatsword variants were in actual battlefield situations. The ones I can think of off-hand are Claymore, Zweihander, Flamberge, and Grosse Masser. (Im sure there are more versions, these are just the most common ones that I know of.)

Were they actually practical weapons in a mass warfare for entire units to be equipped with? Or were they more of a specialist/duelist weapon for small skirmishes?

What types of (dis)advantages did each version have over one another, as well as what sort of armor/shield/weapons did they work best/worst against?

[Broken Crown]

First: Would it be possible and plausible to develop a submersible transport? Something that can carry enough troops or vehicles to be useful as a sort of stealthy transport for an amphibious surprise attack (assuming you can make it difficult to detect via sonar).

This is a thing.

Secondly: What would a modern form of a raid with the intent of getting loot / destroying enemy assets look like? Could it be worth it, if you can move a few thousand troops into an unguarded city, to try something like that, or are the costs involved in logistics, ammunition, etc. just too high?

"Getting loot" and "destroying enemy assets" are really two entirely different missions. Destroying assets can be done with special forces teams, but these days is normally done with aircraft.

Given the cost of operating modern military equipment, getting "loot" is not profitable; there's virtually nothing you can steal that has enough cash value to justify the cost of sending an army to steal it. However, plenty of operations are conducted for the purpose of acquiring something that has strategic value, be it intelligence, fuel supplies, or socks.

[Beleriphon]

Just curious how effective any of the various Greatsword variants were in actual battlefield situations. The ones I can think of off-hand are Claymore, Zweihander, Flamberge, and Grosse Masser. (Im sure there are more versions, these are just the most common ones that I know of.)

Were they actually practical weapons in a mass warfare for entire units to be equipped with? Or were they more of a specialist/duelist weapon for small skirmishes?

What types of (dis)advantages did each version have over one another, as well as what sort of armor/shield/weapons did they work best/worst against?

From what I understand the big zweihander type sword was used landsknechts as a pike breaker. Effectively the guy wielding it would get it moving a big figure-eight pattern and walk towards the enemy line. The idea being that he would hack the ends of pikes to bits and probably take a few pikers out too boot. Whether that's actually how they were used is questionable, but the story has been around since the 17th century so take that as you will.

Incidentally a flamberge is a one handed sword with a wavy blade, the big two handed one is properly a flammenschwert.

[Mr. Mask]

Mongobear: They were more specialist weapons. They were sometimes (or often, if you look at specific regions and times) at the flanks of formations, so they could cut down incoming cavalry or try to break into enemy pike formations. They were considered pretty valuable for the latter use, and were highly paid--though it was a risky job that got many of them killed, and only successfully broke the other formation some of the time (I've seen it argued either way for whether the tactic was worth it).

The Japanese also used some great swords or ōdachi, though more for killing horses than pike formations from what I remember, and never really in units. I don't think such a thing as a unit of great sword users would really exist, unless it was more of a semi-organized band of riders doing some head-hunting.

I think the details of claymores, Zweihänder and the like are too vague to really compare them. Zweihänder just means a two-handed sword. Haven't checked out if the others have consistent enough stats to really check out, either. Generally, they're considered pretty good against pikes, shields and horses, as they can cut the horses more easily with the increased range and damage, can break shields, and were considered able at breaking pike formations. For worst, I'm not really sure. Some have said they're worst against a smaller sword (say hand-and-half), since greatswords are a little slow and unwieldy by comparison. Other than that, I'm not sure. Maybe a six foot spear?



Broken Crown: The only thing worth mustering an army for is war reparations and oil/mineral rights, these days. Or just good ol' conquest.

Though, if your army is in the area or passing through, soldiers can generally steal whatever they can carry with them. Or you could send a small raid to requisition/loot supplies or loot you want/need.

It used to be that raiding and sabotage went hand and hand, till the break up of modern war. Raiders would come in, grab everything they wanted, then if they wanted burn and sabotage what was left to hurt the enemy (burning crops was popular). That still happens in smaller conflicts around the world. The reason it doesn't with large "modern" armies is that when you take a village, town or city, why would you give it up? Raiders don't have the wish or the manpower to keep the ground they capture, as the spoils are their goal--but that doesn't really work for modern armies. Not unless you're going with scorched-Earth tactics, burning and destroying everything you capture as soon as it's no longer of use.

Of course, this is very different from a modern military raid on the enemy. The ancient equivalent would be sneaking into a castle to open the gate, or to destroy their cannon. It's entirely alien from Viking raids on coastal villages.


Beleriphon: Hmm, interesting. I don't think that should be possible, unless the pikes were really flimsy. You might be able to take the head off a pike in optimal conditions. From what I've heard, it seems swordmasters were paid a lot for this role of breaking into pike formations, so I figure their role involved attempting to swipe pikes out of the way, get close, then lay havoc into the enemy formation until you were killed or it broke. Casualty rates for this job were apparently pretty high, and success rates were so-so, so I think that'd fit.

[Honest Tiefling]

If one were to get a scar from a magical flaming weapon, assuming that the magical fire worked like normal fire upon the face, what would the resulting scar look like? If anyone is curious, it is meant to be a magically-inclined version of dueling scars. So describing them might come up a bit.

[Beleriphon]

Mongobear: Beleriphon: Hmm, interesting. I don't think that should be possible, unless the pikes were really flimsy. You might be able to take the head off a pike in optimal conditions. From what I've heard, it seems swordmasters were paid a lot for this role of breaking into pike formations, so I figure their role involved attempting to swipe pikes out of the way, get close, then lay havoc into the enemy formation until you were killed or it broke. Casualty rates for this job were apparently pretty high, and success rates were so-so, so I think that'd fit.

Thus why the tactic was perhaps not accurately representing the actual use of the sword. I think you're referring specifically to the doppelsöldner who got double pay since the work was so dangerous. Either way some dude swinging a six foot sword marching towards you is probably pretty scary.

[Mr. Mask]

Beleriphon: Exactly right. The morale effect along of them trying and maybe succeeding at getting inside your pike's range would be worth a lot against less-disciplined pikers.



Honest: Depends on the degree of the burn from how hot the blade is, and how long after receiving it it's been. Here is an example of a 2nd degree burn ten days later (mildly unpleasant):

Spoiler

Show

I'll see if I can find any sources on scars over time at varying degrees.

EDIT: So far, I've found this, that shows a first and second degree burn's progress over a couple of weeks. They seem to be advertising some kind of scar-removing product, so ignore that (I've no idea if it's a hoax or whatever, but the burn pictures are good): http://www.justaboutskin.com/2015/04...car-treatment/

Something I forgot to mention, is these scars will be combined with blade scarring:

Spoiler

Show

Cuts from blades often won't scar if you clean them out. But if it's combined with fire, there's not much way to avoid scarring.

[Honest Tiefling]

Thanks! Do you have any ideas how the blade part might interact with the scarring?

[Mr. Mask]

My guess would be it'd be like a duelling scar, but redder like the burn scars I showed. G and Mike could tell you better than I could. I'm trying to work out a similar injury you could base it off, something that cuts and burns.

EDIT: Oh, and here's a nasty 3rd degree burn scar (it looks more unpleasant than the first): http://dermatologytimes.modernmedici...ment?page=full

So, if it's a third-degree burn (ouch!!), you're looking at some warped skin along that duelling scar. Of course, how good the treatment (or in the case of duelling scars, mistreatment) is will make a lot of difference to how the scars form (or prevention of forming).

[Honest Tiefling]

My guess would be it'd be like a duelling scar, but redder like the burn scars I showed. G and Mike could tell you better than I could. I'm trying to work out a similar injury you could base it off, something that cuts and burns.

Thanks for your help!

[Mr. Mask]

Added a couple of edits to those posts with added pictures and comments. Hope that helps.

[Broken Crown]

Broken Crown: The only thing worth mustering an army for is war reparations and oil/mineral rights, these days. Or just good ol' conquest.

Even war reparations haven't been worth it for a while. During the negotiations leading up to the Treaty of Versailles, the Entente powers discovered that the entire economic output of the German Empire for a couple of decades wouldn't cover the costs of fighting the war.

Likewise, a huge amount of money is spent on protecting access to oil supplies. But that falls under "strategic value," so presumably it's worth spending money on it.

The Japanese also used some great swords or ōdachi, though more for killing horses than pike formations from what I remember, and never really in units. I don't think such a thing as a unit of great sword users would really exist, unless it was more of a semi-organized band of riders doing some head-hunting.

I'd always understood that ōdachi existed less as a useful weapon than as a source of bragging rights, both for the swordsman ("I'm so strong that I can wield this ridiculous huge blade") and the swordsmith ("I'm so skilled that I can forge this ridiculous huge blade"; no mean feat, given the quality of Japanese iron).

[Brother Oni]

So, if it's a third-degree burn (ouch!!), you're looking at some warped skin along that duelling scar. Of course, how good the treatment (or in the case of duelling scars, mistreatment) is will make a lot of difference to how the scars form (or prevention of forming).

Even with good treatment, keloid tissue formation can sometimes be a bit random but in general you're correct.

I'd always understood that ōdachi existed less as a useful weapon than as a source of bragging rights, both for the swordsman ("I'm so strong that I can wield this ridiculous huge blade") and the swordsmith ("I'm so skilled that I can forge this ridiculous huge blade"; no mean feat, given the quality of Japanese iron).

Some odachi were temple or ritual offering weapons and these were the overly long weapons made to prove either the swordsman's or swordsmith's skill rather than actual combat weapons.
There was a similar two handed anti cavalry weapon, the nagamaki, although it more a spear with long blade / sword with a long handle than a two handed sword.

The Chinese has a similar long double handed single edged weapon, the Zhanmadao, which was used as an anticavalry weapon.

[Mr. Mask]

Crown: True, though WW1 was a very costly war. If it had ended as quickly as the war between France and Germany in WW2, the war reparations and conquest would've been worth a lot. I see your point that oil rights mightn't be worth as much economically as they are strategically.

Hmm, I thought it was ōdachi. Oni might know better as to what large swords were popular against horses.



Oni: Had always wondered about that, with scars. Thanks for clarifying for me!