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

[snowblizz]

I also wonder did the Portuguese sell guns to the Wokou during the 'second wave' ...?

G

I'm wagering on, "most likely". And if not them, Japanese daimyo who as we know learned to make guns from the Portugese right quick. The Sea Lords (and I think that was an 'established term' for some daimyo) were pretty heavily involved in all that. Japanese were big on selling weapons. My gut feeling from reading about the period, mainly from the Sengoku Jidai angle, is that the Sea Lords, being dependant on trade for much of their income would semi-sponsor the Wokou. When not directly engaged. If nothing else turning a bit of a blind eye to their retainers and selling on goods with questionable provenance. I'm betting the modus operandii was to rob Japanese and sell in China and rob Chinese and sell in Japan.

I'm pretty sure one part of solving the problem was for official trading to be established under the Tokugawa and one condition being the Shogun policing his subjects on the matter.

I could probably do better if I dig out the two books I linked too but then I just re-read those all night.
But the answer to your question about the technical aspects seems to have been yes, yes and yes. Ships of many sizes were used, the bigger the more masts they'd have, though usually removed in battle, and yes junks but other types too. Primarily engaging with arrows and boarding actions, but then later on with guns and small cannon, they even used catapults and flamethrowers. Some of the ships were ludicrously large though, several stories high floating palace-fortressesss even (height being an advantage with a mostly small caliber fihgting style). From the illsutrations some of them I do wonder how they weren't blown over. European vessles of the 1500s as I understand where more heavily armed in cannons, more emphasising big guns, and they would not use their ships in line of battle style. Again, as I understand it that was partly the innovation the Koreans under Yi came up with, they focused more on heavy guns, with broadsides and ofc the "turtle ships" even being armoured and pretty much impervious to the opposition. The Japanese was much more into boarding, I don't think it would be too far off the say the Japanese were a bit like the Spanish and the Koreans much like the English (both were underdog seafihgters staving off foreign invaders big on landwrfare). Still IIRC admiral Yi is credited with inventing modern ship combat way before the west really got into duking it out with cannon, I think some British admirals were very impressed with his thinking.

[Hoosigander]

On the subject of ships I found this interesting post: http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.co...omparison.html

[BayardSPSR]

On the subject of ships I found this interesting post: http://greatmingmilitary.blogspot.co...omparison.html

Unfortunately, the fact that it measures cannon based on their weight rather than their weight of shot means that it may not be an accurate comparison of firepower.

EDIT: Fascinating site, though. I'm particularly amused by the post on how Osprey's representation of Chinese militaries is terrible.

[Re4XN]

How many M24 Grenades would it take to neutralize a Landship (approximately)? And what would be the most efficient way to do so, throw them on top, beneath, strap a couple together? How well did the tracks hold afterwards?

[Hoosigander]

Unfortunately, the fact that it measures cannon based on their weight rather than their weight of shot means that it may not be an accurate comparison of firepower.

EDIT: Fascinating site, though. I'm particularly amused by the post on how Osprey's representation of Chinese militaries is terrible.

Yeah, for a second it sure threw me for a loop when I saw cannon being described as thousand pounders, before I noticed it was weight of the piece itself rather than the weight of the shot. It was the text and the illustrations I thought were more valuable.

[Mike_G]

How many M24 Grenades would it take to neutralize a Landship (approximately)? And what would be the most efficient way to do so, throw them on top, beneath, strap a couple together? How well did the tracks hold afterwards?

What exactly do you mean by "landship?"

[Brother Oni]

When it comes to Ronin I think that Brother Oni may be more informed than I, but it seems to me that although Ronin may have been among the ranks of the Wokou, civil disorder in Japan was probably not a main driver of the Wokou crisis.

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but rather surprisingly, samurai pirates are a little out of my field of knowledge.

I'm wagering on, "most likely". And if not them, Japanese daimyo who as we know learned to make guns from the Portugese right quick.

I believe they also bought them from the Dutch, who didn't have pesky clauses attached to their guns like permitting Jesuits in, who would promptly try to convert as many people as they could.

What exactly do you mean by "landship?"

I think he means WW1 era tanks like the Mark IV.

I'd say get as close as you can then try and stick a grenade through a hatch or other port/vent, in which case you'd only need one as even if the shrapnel doesn't kill the crew, the smoke and fumes will drive them out (it's not spacious or comfortable inside, particularly with a crew of 8 and an open engine in the middle of the compartment).

Unless he meant the TOGII*, which is more landship than tank, despite being of WW2 vintage:

Spoiler: TOGII*

Show

For reference, the TOGII* is longer and taller than an Abrams M1A1 but not quite as wide.

[fusilier]

How many M24 Grenades would it take to neutralize a Landship (approximately)? And what would be the most efficient way to do so, throw them on top, beneath, strap a couple together? How well did the tracks hold afterwards?

See here:
http://www.landships.info/landships/...Anti_Tank.html

They would have been the WW1 variant of the Stielhandgranate (M1916) but I think they had pretty similar performance. Basically, throw a bag of grenades (or a bundle from 1918) either onto the top of the tank or under a tread, and you could expect to disable the tank. No details on the actual damage done to the tank however.

[Re4XN]

Yeah, I was talking about tanks like the Mark IV used in WWI. Thanks for the answers. I was aware that German troops strapped the heads of their grenades (7 or 8) and throw them for a larger explosion, but did not know how efficient this was.

Will need to dig into this a bit further. Did not know stuff like Anti-Tank rifles existed.

[Mr Beer]

Will need to dig into this a bit further. Did not know stuff like Anti-Tank rifles existed.

WWI tanks had pretty crap armour so you didn't need particularly heavy projectiles or specialised ammunition to penetrate. Like the link above indicates, a contemporary elephant rifle made a plausible anti-tank weapon.

[Gnoman]

Even a basic Mauser became a tolerable antitank weapon in WWI with the right ammo. Both the "reverse" round and the later "K" bullet could knock out a Mk I with a little luck.

[Khedrac]

WWI tanks had pretty crap armour so you didn't need particularly heavy projectiles or specialised ammunition to penetrate. Like the link above indicates, a contemporary elephant rifle made a plausible anti-tank weapon.

This also depends a lot on the tank in question (I happened to visit Bovington Tank Museum a couple of months ago). One of the landship/tank designs on display was the training tank - no real armour, just a metal shell to feel like the real tank - not for use on the front.
Due to production shortages they actually shipped and used a lot of the training tanks in the early tank battles. Normal rifle rounds would go through their armour...

[Re4XN]

Apparently when the Mark IV came, the K round was no longer good enough. The T Gewehr was developed (and deployed) with the sole purpose of penetrating tank armour. The rounds were huge, judging from the images (13mm). It was the only AT Rifle used in WWI, which makes sense, since the British were sending hundreds of tanks their way...

[Comet]

When were stabilisers first developed for archery? I understand that the modern compound bow was developed in the 60s, but were there bows before that had rods attached for balance, stabilisation or even impact absortion? In other words, when did the silhouette of the bow first change from the classic thing we expect to see when we think about, say, medieval archery?

[Brother Oni]

When were stabilisers first developed for archery? I understand that the modern compound bow was developed in the 60s, but were there bows before that had rods attached for balance, stabilisation or even impact absortion? In other words, when did the silhouette of the bow first change from the classic thing we expect to see when we think about, say, medieval archery?

The typical bow thought of in medieval archery depends very much on where in the world you're talking about. Since you mentioned medieval, I'll assume you meant in Europe.

The typical image is of a Welsh or English longbowman and these days they are called 'self bows', that is they're carved out of a single piece of wood.

Spoiler: Self bow

Show

This is in contrast to bows that are made of layers of wood, bone and sinew glued together, or composite bows and bows which have a curve in the ends of limbs (recurve), bows which curve away from the archer throughout (reflex) and those that curve towards the archer throughout (decurve).

Archery started to decline in the 16th Century in England, disappearing completely as a weapon of war by the time of the 17th Century English Civil War (the Privy Council passed an ordinance in 1595 stating that archers no longer need to be mustered). Archery got a resurgence during Victorian times and this lead to the development of the carriage bow, or a bow that broke into two halves and slotted together (supposedly for easy storage in a carriage as a bow should be about the same length as the height of the archer).

Spoiler: Modern composite takedown longbow

Show

The earliest advertisement I can find for one in the west is from ~1830 for a 'jointed' bow, although Eskimo bows are also of the takedown variety and there are records of the Chinese and Japanese using hinged and latched bows since the 1700s.

Carriage bows were the precursors to modern takedown bows which come with a central 'grip' or riser and the arms of the bow (limbs) slot or screw into the riser and these modern bows were developed in the late 1940s by Fred Bear, influenced heavily by American flatbows (bows that have flat, rather than rounded, limbs). Fred Bear also pioneered the use of fibreglass for bow limbs and hence the modern laminated bow (an updated version of the composite bow).

Spoiler: Modern Olympic recurve (takedown fibreglass laminated recurve flatbow)

Show

In the early 1960s, Earl Hoyt started marketing 'torque stabilised' bows, which are now called the top and bottom rods of a bow's stabilisation system. There were a number of competing systems (such as mercury filled hollow rods) over the years and these days, the most common system is a long rod stabiliser and a pair of short rod side stabilisers attached by a v-bar, which screws into the front of the riser:

Spoiler: Bow stabilisers

Show

Compound bows are basically what happens if you let engineers loose on a task with no supervision. These string and pulley monstrosities hit the market in the 1969 so post-date modern takedown bows and the first introduction of stabilisation systems.


As a side note, modern takedown bows are modular in design, so you can attach as much or as little as you like. I know an archer who shoots his olympic recurve barebow (all he has is the riser, limbs, string and an arrow rest; no sights, stabilisers, clicker or any other gubbins). I'm personally not good enough to get anything out of side stabilisers yet, so only have a long rod, sights and arrow rest (because I'm using plastic fletchings on my arrows). I'd probably go without the long rod as well if I could nail down my style to tune my bow correctly to minimise the vibration.

[2D8HP]

The typical bow thought of in medieval archery depends very much on where in the woThe typical image is of a Welsh or English longbowman and these days they are called 'self bows', that is they're carved out of a single piece of wood.
Self bow:

That looks AWESOME!
IT MUST BE MINE!
(Suggestions are very welcome)

[Brother Oni]

That looks AWESOME!
IT MUST BE MINE!
(Suggestions are very welcome)

Are you planning to shoot with it or mount it on a wall as decoration? If it's for decoration, then just get the cheapest one that looks good (not judging, just saying).

If it's for shooting, then I highly suggest taking at least a beginner's course at a decent archery club. They'll show you how to shoot properly and give you pointers as to the specifications of the bow you need. You don't want to be that guy who walks into an archery shop and says "I want a bow" without any idea of what he needs. While you can just buy a cheap starter bow, a couple of arrows and just start shooting at straw bales in your backyard with no instruction, I don't recommend it.

I assume you're in the US and there are a number of traditional bowyers and companies who can sell you a bow. I can't give you advice on bowyers in the US, but glancing at some US websites like 3 Rivers Archery, you're looking at ~200 USD for the bow alone, another ~40 dollars for 6 wood arrows (aluminium and carbon fibre arrows don't fly right out of a traditional longbow as they're a bit too light for the bow), then however much you want to spend on a tab (finger protector for your drawing hand), bracer (protection for your inside forearm of the arm holding the bow) and a quiver. Depending on your shooting form, you may also need a chest protector, otherwise the string can potentially hit your chest when you loose it.

Wood bows degrade over time as the wood loses its spring from being under constant tension. This will reduce the power you get out of the bow and hence your accuracy and range goes to pot, so you have to unstring your bow when you're not using it (modern fibreglass bows don't suffer from this problem).

If you're planning to go hunting, check your local state laws as there will be a minimum draw weight requirement, plus there may be other laws on carrying a dangerous weapon in public. You'll also need broadhead arrowheads as a standard target point generally won't bring the animal down (again I can't give advice on this as bow hunting is illegal in the UK).

[2D8HP]

Are you planning to shoot with it or mount it on a wall as decoration?

@Oni,
Thanks for the tips!
No hunting for me, as I wouldn't want to leave my family long enough to pursue it, plus I wouldn't want a slow kill on my conscience (this is not a dig on hunters, and the skills they have). Our local Regional Parks have an Archery Range near my home, and near my work, I have no plans beyond that.
But now I'm curious about archery where you live in "Longbow"land!

[Knaight]

@Oni,
Thanks for the tips!
No hunting for me, as I wouldn't want to leave my family long enough to pursue it, plus I wouldn't want a slow kill on my conscience (this is not a dig on hunters, and the skills they have). Our local Regional Parks have an Archery Range near my home, and near my work, I have no plans beyond that.
But now I'm curious about archery where you live in "Longbow"land!

If you're doing target shooting you'll still want a substantially better bow than one intended to be decorative. I'd recommend hitting up the archery range to figure out what your preferred draw weight is (if you buy an 80 pound bow and it turns out that you can't handle anything more than 60 you just wasted a fair amount of money), and then seeing about finding a bow afterwards.

[Brother Oni]

If you're doing target shooting you'll still want a substantially better bow than one intended to be decorative. I'd recommend hitting up the archery range to figure out what your preferred draw weight is (if you buy an 80 pound bow and it turns out that you can't handle anything more than 60 you just wasted a fair amount of money), and then seeing about finding a bow afterwards.

Just to build on this a little, even 60lb is a fairly hefty weight for a beginner (remember that you'll be holding onto this weight with three fingers via a bit of string then drawing and releasing this multiple times), so in all likelihood you'll start off with something fairly light (30-40lbs) then go up in draw weight up as you improve.

I know it's difficult, but try not to let your ego dictate what draw weight you get. Being 'over bow-ed' or having a draw weight that's too heavy for you just means you have poor precision since you're struggling to hold the bow still at full draw and you'll get tired very quickly. While medieval war archers never held their bows at full draw for long, target archery is a different situation.

I've also heard horror stories of archers with completely inappropriate kit, like one had a bow so heavy for him, it took him and a friend to draw it. Also, make sure your arrows are long enough:

Spoiler: Ouch

Show

Yep, that's his hand trapped around the riser as he didn't notice his arrow falling off the rest before he loosed.

[snowblizz]

I love how people in those situations have time to stop and take pictures. It's just a flesh wound!

And not only is the dude pinned, he's a got a finger AND hand caught there.

[Brother Oni]

I love how people in those situations have time to stop and take pictures. It's just a flesh wound!

I believe the picture was taken by another person who was at the range while they were sorting out the guy for transport to hospital.

If you want to see a flesh wound, take a look at carbon fibre arrow accidents. CF arrows shatter into razor sharp splinters when they break and those injuries look extremely painful.

[Carl]

Just looking at that makes my hand hurt. Ow, Ow Ow Ow.

[Clistenes]

I'm wagering on, "most likely". And if not them, Japanese daimyo who as we know learned to make guns from the Portugese right quick. The Sea Lords (and I think that was an 'established term' for some daimyo) were pretty heavily involved in all that. Japanese were big on selling weapons. My gut feeling from reading about the period, mainly from the Sengoku Jidai angle, is that the Sea Lords, being dependant on trade for much of their income would semi-sponsor the Wokou. When not directly engaged. If nothing else turning a bit of a blind eye to their retainers and selling on goods with questionable provenance. I'm betting the modus operandii was to rob Japanese and sell in China and rob Chinese and sell in Japan.

I'm pretty sure one part of solving the problem was for official trading to be established under the Tokugawa and one condition being the Shogun policing his subjects on the matter.

I could probably do better if I dig out the two books I linked too but then I just re-read those all night.
But the answer to your question about the technical aspects seems to have been yes, yes and yes. Ships of many sizes were used, the bigger the more masts they'd have, though usually removed in battle, and yes junks but other types too. Primarily engaging with arrows and boarding actions, but then later on with guns and small cannon, they even used catapults and flamethrowers. Some of the ships were ludicrously large though, several stories high floating palace-fortressesss even (height being an advantage with a mostly small caliber fihgting style). From the illsutrations some of them I do wonder how they weren't blown over. European vessles of the 1500s as I understand where more heavily armed in cannons, more emphasising big guns, and they would not use their ships in line of battle style. Again, as I understand it that was partly the innovation the Koreans under Yi came up with, they focused more on heavy guns, with broadsides and ofc the "turtle ships" even being armoured and pretty much impervious to the opposition. The Japanese was much more into boarding, I don't think it would be too far off the say the Japanese were a bit like the Spanish and the Koreans much like the English (both were underdog seafihgters staving off foreign invaders big on landwrfare). Still IIRC admiral Yi is credited with inventing modern ship combat way before the west really got into duking it out with cannon, I think some British admirals were very impressed with his thinking.

Japanese pirates in Philippines had firearms indeed.

And many daimyos were patrons of wokou and smugglers. Even the shoguns were suspected to pull the strings of the wokou, using them to test the strength of other countries without attacking them openly.

Also, many (probably most) of the chartered merchants sent by the shoguns and daimyos to Manila and other ports of the Sea of China were also smugglers and pirates who could turn into invaders if required. The chinese Ming dinasty had made maritime trade illegal for a long time, which didn't make it disappear, it just put it under control of wokou, pirates and smugglers willing to break the law and fight the chinese navy.

The history of the Philippines is fascinating. There happened stuff that seems straight out of fantasy. There was a time shogun Hideyoshi prepared a espionage mission to Manile in search of weaknesses, and had a team of spies study Christianism and disguise themselves as Christian pilgrims. Except that Manila isn't considered sacred at all by Catholics, and there isn't anything there considered holy enough to make a pilgrimage, so Spanish authorities knew at once that those were spies, and while they didn't dare do anything against them (they didn't want to provoke Hideyoshi), they started preparing themselves for an invasion from Japan (which never came).

[Maquise]

What colors can steel patina come in? And does anyone know of swords that have the hilt colored/enameled (historically, that is)?

[Xuc Xac]

What colors can steel patina come in?

Reddish orange to dark brown. It's called rust and you don't want it on a sword.

[Brother Oni]

What colors can steel patina come in? And does anyone know of swords that have the hilt colored/enameled (historically, that is)?

I've heard of decorated and coloured crossguards and basket hilts, but doing anything to the grip that makes it more slippery is generally a bad idea.

Spoiler: Rapier of Prince-Elector Christian II of Saxony, early 17th Century

Show

Generally such ornate decoration are for decorative and ceremonial weapons rather than fighting ones, but enamelling was common to help protect the sword from rust.

Reddish orange to dark brown. It's called rust and you don't want it on a sword.

Does a damascus pattern count as a patina or is that intrinsic to the blade structure and not count as surface layer?

[Max_Killjoy]

What colors can steel patina come in? And does anyone know of swords that have the hilt colored/enameled (historically, that is)?

There's this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_oxide

[Mike_G]

Reddish orange to dark brown. It's called rust and you don't want it on a sword.

Well, there's always bluing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluing_(steel)

[PersonMan]

So, after asking before about how much manpower a modern nation could deploy, I'm now wondering what limitations on naval/air production there are - it's not possible to just draft more fighter jets, after all. Could a smaller nation militarize its industry quickly to supply their air force with planes, or would that end up with bad equipment at best? How long would it take to go from "we need an aircraft carrier" to "our aircraft carrier is ready to fight"?