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

[rrgg]

This is just some information about "bullet-proofed" armor in the late 16th century from Roger Williams.

He writes that few if any soldiers wore armor which was proof against a musket at 200-240 paces. Although during assults a small number of soldiers or officers in musket proofed armor would be sent ahead to scout the wall for breaches.

A soldier with the best proofed shields would not be able to fight with them for more than an hour, so lighter-proofed shields were better for targeteers

Horsemen's armor should be at most pistol-proof at the front, otherwise it would be too heavy for most horses.

Pikemen should wear helmets which are caliver-proof at the front at 200-240 paces. About 20% of the pikemen should have corselets which are the same thickness as their helmet the front.

It seems that Williams is talking about some pretty powerful weapons here. According to him a caliver used around 15-20 grams of gunpowder per shot while a musket used 40-50 grams per shot, for comparison a military charge for a flintlock musket in the 18th-19th centuries was generally less than 10 grams of powder.

--

On a slightly related note, he writes that horsemen charging into a hail or arrows weren't that worried about their unarmored horses being shot out from under them as long as they themselves were armored. So I guess the Hollywood-style "every horse does a dramatic frontflip almost certainly breaking the rider's neck unless he's a main character" may not be that accurate.

Edit: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A15...1.001?view=toc

[Vinyadan]

How long was a pace?

[Max_Killjoy]

How long was a pace?

If I recall correctly, roughly a yard.

[rrgg]

How long was a pace?

In English it's about a yard, possibly closer to 2.5 feet. For comparison he estimates the maximum range of most English archers to be 240-280 paces.

[Mike_G]

A "pace" was originally just a step. So you walked 200 steps and set up a target, which is a bit imprecise, but workable.

Today (or 1986, which is the last time I did close order drill), the military marches with a "30 inch step" which is 2.5 feet.

[fusilier]

In English it's about a yard, possibly closer to 2.5 feet. For comparison he estimates the maximum range of most English archers to be 240-280 paces.

+1

A Roman pace was a "double pace"; about 5 feet. Sometimes people confuse the two, but unless specified or the context makes it obvious, I usually assume approximately 2.5 feet to the pace.

[snowblizz]

Nowadays, there are some countries where people demand visitors to take off their shoes when they get inside (BTW, this is something I hate: at least give me some flip flops, don't make me walk around barefoot while you aren't).

Wear socks like grown man? What are you, a cave person? We don't have dirt floors inside any longer.

Also flip-flops inside? Are you nuts.

[Max_Killjoy]

There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.

The understanding that drinking even a mildly fermented beverage (which included boiling the water in the process) was healthier than drinking water from many sources goes back to at least 5000 BC with the Sumerians and Egyptians. Of course they didn't understand why, but over time it just became obvious that, for example, kids who drank "small beer" weren't getting crippling diarrhea repeatedly.

It didn't hurt that the beer was less filtered and carried more of the nutrients from the grain used to make it, than modern beers.

Related, it's also important to understand that many modern beers are super-strong compared to what people drank on a daily basis. People weren't walking around with a heavy buzz on all day every day.

[Vinyadan]

Wear socks like grown man? What are you, a cave person? We don't have dirt floors inside any longer.

Also flip-flops inside? Are you nuts.

My opinion can be summed up thus:
1. Wearing socks without shoes or some sort of sole, to me, means being barefoot.
2. I accept being barefoot if the person I am visiting also is barefoot. If the other person isn't barefoot, I see it as if he were sitting and leaving me standing, or drinking and not offering me anything: inhospitable.
I never had a quarrel about this, anyway, it just irks me.

[Storm Bringer]

There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.

like Max_Killjoy said, a lot of the "beer" being drunk was "small beer", which was very weak by todays standards, often only 1-2% ABV (compared to 5% ABV for Budweiser and most similar beers, or 6-7% for some of the stronger ales).

In a similar fashion, the Romans and Greeks routinely drank their wine watered down, and it was a while set of derogatory nicknames for people who were such alcoholics that they drank their wine pure (though it is believed that greek and roman wine was much stronger than modern wines, so the end result may have been the same as modern wine) .

[fusilier]

There is a story about people being conscious of the fact that drinking treated beer was healthier than untreated water in the Middle Ages, but I don't really believe it. I think they just liked beer.

I remember reading an article that pointed out that people in the Middle Ages did drink water -- they just didn't write about it often as it was normal and boring. I think it went on to mention that from time to time city and town records show concern for accessing clean and healthy water. Having said that, they may have considered beer and wine to be safer if the water supply was questionable.

[Martin Greywolf]

I remember reading an article that pointed out that people in the Middle Ages did drink water -- they just didn't write about it often as it was normal and boring. I think it went on to mention that from time to time city and town records show concern for accessing clean and healthy water. Having said that, they may have considered beer and wine to be safer if the water supply was questionable.

This. You can fins wells all over the place in castles and churches. To take one castle I know well as an example (Beckov, SK, if anyone is interested), it used a massive cistern right in the citadel portion of it to collect rainwater to drink for a long time, and built a well around early 16th century, IIRC.

The well was situated at the bottom of the castle rock, so far down they actually had to extend castle walls to it. The highest part of castle walls when measured from the ground is there, actually. There were soldiers whose sole duty was guarding the well, they had higher pay, and in case they let something happen to the well water, they were punished. By beheading.

Poisoning wells was also a time-tested tactic, chucking dead people or animals in there to contaminate the water. This took out your well out for quite a few days, since it had to be cleaned with lime.

Beer and wine, all weaker than our own or watered down to be weaker, was used when there was a concern about water quality. That means not only marching armies, but, for example, travelers. Especially the wealthier ones would rather fork over some cash rather than risk that local water supply is contaminated, especially since they changed places so often. This is perhaps one of the major reasons why inns became a thing as early as 11th-12th century, and why monasteries (who almost always had to take in travelers in need because they had in in their rule) brewed beer and made wine so often.

[Garimeth]

This. You can fins wells all over the place in castles and churches. To take one castle I know well as an example (Beckov, SK, if anyone is interested), it used a massive cistern right in the citadel portion of it to collect rainwater to drink for a long time, and built a well around early 16th century, IIRC.

The well was situated at the bottom of the castle rock, so far down they actually had to extend castle walls to it. The highest part of castle walls when measured from the ground is there, actually. There were soldiers whose sole duty was guarding the well, they had higher pay, and in case they let something happen to the well water, they were punished. By beheading.

Poisoning wells was also a time-tested tactic, chucking dead people or animals in there to contaminate the water. This took out your well out for quite a few days, since it had to be cleaned with lime.

Beer and wine, all weaker than our own or watered down to be weaker, was used when there was a concern about water quality. That means not only marching armies, but, for example, travelers. Especially the wealthier ones would rather fork over some cash rather than risk that local water supply is contaminated, especially since they changed places so often. This is perhaps one of the major reasons why inns became a thing as early as 11th-12th century, and why monasteries (who almost always had to take in travelers in need because they had in in their rule) brewed beer and made wine so often.

I imagine the popularity of tea was of a similar origin, but am not certain.

[Storm Bringer]

I imagine the popularity of tea was of a similar origin, but am not certain.

possibly. the popularity of Coffee and drinking chocolate (which preceded the solid form of chocolate by something like 150 years) could well be related to this as well.

[Yora]

I heard tea became popular because pure sugar water or raw sugar cane would be disgusting, but american sugar was a great high energy dietary supplement. Add bitter tea and you can drink it in large quantities. Hop in beer has the only purpose to counter the natural sweetness you'd otherwise get.

Silly action movie question: Could you rig a suitcase with a tripwire activated claymore mine to blow up in the fact of whoever flips it open and be able to survive it standing on the opposite side of the table?
Sounds like a great movie stunt, but videos I've seen of claymore training make it look like a really big bang in all directions.

[Miraqariftsky]

We're doing that now.

Since the F 35 is both delayed and awful, old planes are being taken out of mothballs and pressed into service. The Pentagon expected a new air fleet by now, but with delays and cost overruns and a higher operational tempo of more or less constant warfare over the last 14 years, our air fleet is old and worn out.

Just cruising by and came across your post there, sir. What's the news on the good old A-10 Warthog? Last I heard, it was about to be discontinued? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't warplanes along the line of the Warthog a better fit for today's warzones than yet more expensive jets? If they really want a replacement, why not rather make a successor, as the Blackhawk is to the Huey? Though, pretty sure the latter is still in service, because, though old, it's still a cheaper and proven workhorse, right?

[PersonMan]

I think it'd primarily be a function of the strength of the explosive (from what I've read, you can probably get a weaker 'boom' and still kill someone at arm's length) and the strength of the suitcase.

If you pack a full-strength high explosive into a normal suitcase, it'll probably just turn into shrapnel, but a specially reinforced thing could be able to deflect a blast especially if it's not from a bomb made to punch through much more than half a meter of air and a suit.

[Gnoman]

I heard tea became popular because pure sugar water or raw sugar cane would be disgusting, but american sugar was a great high energy dietary supplement. Add bitter tea and you can drink it in large quantities. Hop in beer has the only purpose to counter the natural sweetness you'd otherwise get.

That would be logical - except that sugared tea wasn't a thing until the 1740s, and by that point the drink had been increasingly popular in Europe for a century (the cost of importation slowed the growth of popularity) and in China (where sugaring the stuff never caught on) for at least three thousand years.

Silly action movie question: Could you rig a suitcase with a tripwire activated claymore mine to blow up in the fact of whoever flips it open and be able to survive it standing on the opposite side of the table?
Sounds like a great movie stunt, but videos I've seen of claymore training make it look like a really big bang in all directions.

5. Danger Area

a. Danger From Fragments (fig. 4). The danger area consists of a 180° fan with a radius of 250 meters centered in the direction of aim.

b. Danger Area of Backblast and Secondary Missiles (figs. 4 and 24). Within an area of 16 meters to the rear and sides of the mine, backblast can cause injury by concussion (ruptured eardrums) and create a secondary missile hazard.

(1) Friendly troops are prohibited to the rear and sides of the mine within a radius of 16 meters.

(2) The minimum safe operating distance from the mine is 16 meters. At this distance, and regardless of how the mine is employed, the operator should be in a foxhole, behind cover, or lying prone in a depression. The operator and all friendly troops within 100 meters of the mine must take cover to prevent being injured by flying secondary objects such as sticks, stones, and pebbles.

16 meters would be a very large table.

[Vinyadan]

I'd rather impute that to caffeine and endorphins.

Anyway, the note about travellers is actually something I have been confronted by in certain occasions. People who have grown up in a certain place drinking from a certain water source usually end up having no problems, while travellers can get ill by drinking from that same source even once. Nowadays we impute this to germs in the water, to which people can grow resistant over time, to the point that the water is, to them perfectly potable; to outsiders, however, it is contaminated. This fact was once described through the theory of seasoning. The first years in a new place could bring about a number of diseases, which would disappear once the person had "seasoned" himself to the new location, i.e., simply spent enough time there, eating and drinking what was available. I know the theory was around from the 15th to the 19th century because of the great explorations, maybe something similar was to be found earlier in relation to shorter travels.

Roman wine was different from today's wine in many ways. It was much, much stronger, and also very turbid, to the point that it had to be filtered before use. After having been filtered, water was added to it, in quantities of about 1 wine : 4 or 5 water. Of course, there is the matter of fact that that water came from the aqueduct or the fountain or the source of the place where the drinkers came from, so they already were accustomed to it. Wine was drunk hot (emperor Tiberius Claudius Nero was called Biberius Caldus Mero, "Hot Pure Wine Beverage"), which could have unknowingly made the water safer to drink. Roman cities had sewers, however, which might have made them healthier than what was to come later. Road taverns were to be found in the Po Valley around the first years of the empire. One could pay a fixed price for dinner and accommodation. However, places were it was possible to dine and sleep are a common feature in the classical era, although I am not sure of their location outside villages or cities.

[Max_Killjoy]

Just cruising by and came across your post there, sir. What's the news on the good old A-10 Warthog? Last I heard, it was about to be discontinued? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't warplanes along the line of the Warthog a better fit for today's warzones than yet more expensive jets? If they really want a replacement, why not rather make a successor, as the Blackhawk is to the Huey? Though, pretty sure the latter is still in service, because, though old, it's still a cheaper and proven workhorse, right?

The "newer, faster, higher, tech-ier, stealthier" fighter jokes and New Age Warfare wonks at the Pentagon keep trying to kill it... so they can put the relative pittance this would save into their precious F-35 program.

Its friends in the Congress and often the Army keep giving it a stay of execution.

[Mike_G]

The "newer, faster, higher, tech-ier, stealthier" fighter jokes and New Age Warfare wonks at the Pentagon keep trying to kill it... so they can put the relative pittance this would save into their precious F-35 program.

Its friends in the Congress and often the Army keep giving it a stay of execution.

Second this.

The A-10 is the balls. Soldiers love it, because it's a great ground attack plane. So, for fighting ISIS or any of our current conflicts, it's a very good asset to have.

But the zoomies who think Top Gun is a porn film just want newer, faster, higher tech jets, even when the new tech is questionable, buggy and overpriced.

The Marines have their own air assets, which the Army doesn't, and Marine pilots train more for close air support (because ground combat is what Marines do) than Air Force pilots who want to dogfight.

[JustSomeGuy]

Is the suitcase anchored down somehow so the claymore can be 'set' into something solid and stable? If it were set off unattatched, i've a feeling newton's 3rd law might influence it's discharge somewhat!

[Vinyadan]

The A-10 has its areas of application, which don't seem to be going to disappear any time soon. At the same time, in an all out war, instead of an asymmetrical conflict, its utility would decrease very fast, since it is unusable in areas without complete control of the skies. Its infantry support role is subordinated to the enemy air force and defences already having been offed. So it's all a matter of what you wish to be prepared for. Let's say that I hope the Warthog stays in service because, if it were to become obsolete to the point of being useless, it would mean that the world would be on the verge of a war between major or super powers (or that newer avionics are easily hackable, making newer aeroplanes unusable and leaving the A-10 uncovered against a smaller air defence force).

[Max_Killjoy]

The A-10 has its areas of application, which don't seem to be going to disappear any time soon. At the same time, in an all out war, instead of an asymmetrical conflict, its utility would decrease very fast, since it is unusable in areas without complete control of the skies. Its infantry support role is subordinated to the enemy air force and defences already having been offed. So it's all a matter of what you wish to be prepared for. Let's say that I hope the Warthog stays in service because, if it were to become obsolete to the point of being useless, it would mean that the world would be on the verge of a war between major or super powers (or that newer avionics are easily hackable, making newer aeroplanes unusable and leaving the A-10 uncovered against a smaller air defence force).

The last time I checked, no A-10 had ever been "shot down" by another plane in dissimilar air combat exercises (I make no promise of being 100% up to date) -- fighters just aren't as good as one might think at coming down into the weeds where the A-10 lives, and AAMs still aren't that great at hitting a slow-moving, cool-engined target flying at under 200 feet. In an actual turning fight at low altitude, the A-10 has a pretty steep advantage, it carries a pair of all-aspect Sidewinders, and the "warthog stomp" (point nose, pull trigger, hose target with 30mm rounds) is surprisingly effective for a plane with no air-to-air radar.

[Carl]

Yeah if it's close to stall speed an A-10 can actually turn inside a sidewinder, even when the later has bled most of it's own speed off. If it's still going like a bat out of hell it's no chance of stay with the A-10 in a turn. Now weather at such low speeds it can get enough miss distance to be safe from proximity detonations i can;t say. But it's worth bearing that in mind. If you want somthing that can stay with it through a turn at that slow a speed, well, time to break out the museum pieces, cira WW2.

[Yora]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't warplanes along the line of the Warthog a better fit for today's warzones than yet more expensive jets? If they really want a replacement, why not rather make a successor, as the Blackhawk is to the Huey? Though, pretty sure the latter is still in service, because, though old, it's still a cheaper and proven workhorse, right?

The idea was to have only a single plane that can do the jobs of several different old planes, which would make it easier to produce it in high numbers, get replacement parts, and train pilots and ground crews. Because that would be a lot cheaper and save huge amounts of money.
Oh, the irony...

It wasn't a stupid idea in the beginning, but at some point they should have realized that they can't actually build such a plane and cut their losses. Instead they kept hoping that those issues could be fixed if they throw a bit more money at it. Now we know: They couldn't.

Probably needs still just a bit more money to get it right.

[snowblizz]

. Now weather at such low speeds it can get enough miss distance to be safe from proximity detonations i can;t say.

The plane itself should be designed to take a tank shell to the face. I'm not sure proximity anything is going to bother it much.
Am also a Warthog fan obviously.

If you ask me instead of whining about how someone got convoys of white toyota pick-ups to make technicals they should be strafing said convoys with Warthogs. Solve the problem much faster that way.


It's probably a somewhat legitimate complaint that an A-10 could do with a serious ipgrade when it comes to various electronics, at least for targeting and such.

[Vinyadan]

BTW, there's a voice in my head telling me that the A-10 was the inspiration for the design of the Y Wing.

[Max_Killjoy]

The plane itself should be designed to take a tank shell to the face. I'm not sure proximity anything is going to bother it much.
Am also a Warthog fan obviously.

If you ask me instead of whining about how someone got convoys of white toyota pick-ups to make technicals they should be strafing said convoys with Warthogs. Solve the problem much faster that way.


It's probably a somewhat legitimate complaint that an A-10 could do with a serious ipgrade when it comes to various electronics, at least for targeting and such.

It has had multiple major avionics upgrades, along with the wing replacement program to extend its service life.

IIRC, all these programs together, for the entire A-10 fleet, cost less than a single F-35.

[rrgg]

As far as beer and wine vs water goes. As I understand it there is little to know evidence that people in the past drank only beer or other beverages to keep from getting sick while there is quite a lot of evidence that people drank water and that towns and cities put a lot of effort into securing fresh water sources.