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

[rrgg]

In the middle ages they used to use (I think cast) iron bullets for armor-piercing ammunition in firearms going back to the 1300's.

So it seems to me that tungsten ammunition might be appreciated. Both for firearms bullets and for 'cannister' type shot for cannons.

Conversely, ceramic or even beryl armor as a kind of one-off defense against powerful firearms, muskets etc., maybe for some kind of elite one-time use like a hit-squad is a kind of interesting idea. I mean, it's used today. Could find a niche. Seems like it would be extra vulnerable to a lot of hand weapons for example, hammers and maces. Probably axes, maybe swords and spears too.

And I think in thicknesses being worth use- it would be heavier and bulkier than armor people were used to. However anywhere that high energy muskets are a threat anything that can save you might be appreciated.

G

You know, as long as we're on the subject of exotic materials used for bullets it seems that gold and silver actually were considered for either small arms or cannons, if not really taken seriously. From Turner's Pallas Armata, page 192:

"Bullets for any kind of Ordnance or Fire-Guns, may be of any metal you please, yea of Gold or Silver; the first is too costly; the second some fancy to be able to pierce such as are (by some black art or other) hard, or Bullet-proof. But to charge a person that is Bullet-proof, with a Silver-ball, to me seems to be like the Assaulting an Inchanted Castle."

[gkathellar]

Oh, I'm not saying the defeat of a vastly numerically superior force never happens, just that it's cause to look for corroborating sources.

[Haighus]

The smaller Dutch force did also get promptly routed by the superior Chinese forces after they underestimated Chinese resolve...

[Clistenes]

Was it a Dutch text?

(If you gave me those numbers measuring astronauts modern infantry fighting against cavemen, I'd still raise my eyebrows.)

Well, the Dutch claimed that a well-armed company could face off a Chinese troop 25 times larger, if the latter were armed just with bows, swords, polearms and paper armor. It seems they were very confidend their technological advantage could beat the numbers of the Chinese...

There's the Siege of the Internation Legations during the Boxer War, which pitted 409 soldiers and 150 civilian volunteers versus somewhere in the region of 20,000 Chinese rebels.

Even taking into account that the unit 10,000 is often a poetic Chinese term meaning 'lots and lots' rather than an actual figure, that's still a lot of troops, showcasing the power of modern weaponry, better trained troops and fortified positions (the Western powers, Russian and Japanese troops were equipped with a variety of bolt action repeating rifles, while the Chinese rebels had single shot Martini Henrys or Martini Metfords, or just armed with melee weapons).

While searching, I found this (most likely apocryphal) anecdote regarding how the various relief forces managed to get inside Peking to relive the siege:

- The Russians love artillery so they wheeled up their fieldpieces and blew it open.
- The Japanese love insane bravery: one man rushed forward with a satchel charge and was shot down. Another man rushed forward, picked it up, and was shot down. Repeat until the charge was finally placed to blow open the gate.
- The Americans love individual guts: two men snuck up to the wall by night, scaled it and opened the gate.
- The British are just stupid-lucky: they found their gate unguarded and marched through with bands and bagpipes playing.

The Spaniards were in good terms with the Chinese government, so they spent most of the war acting go-betweens for the Chinese and Europeans... the spanish ambassador, Bernardo de Cólogan y Cólogan was the last foreign diplomat to be allowed access to the Forbidden City, had a key role in the redaction of the Boxer Protocol, which was finally signed in the Spanish Embassy...

Benardo de Cólogan y Cologán was awarded the Great Cross of the Red Eagle from Prussia, the Great Cross of the Order of Saint Anna from Russia, the Great Cross of the Order of the Polar Star from Sweden, the National Order of the Legion of Honour from France and the Great Cross of Military Merit from Spain to show their gratitude and as recognition for his role...

Great Britain, on the other hand, utterly ignored him, and tried to erase him from history and pretend that their own diplomats had done all the work and that the Boxer Protocol had been signed in their own embassy... Oh, and all the troops from the other countries were there mostly to watch the British troops fight and cheer them from afar!

[wolflance]

The text I read said it were more than 4,000 chinese troops vs 240 or less dutchmen...

Yes. That's from the Dutch side of the record. There are numerous accounts for that battle, including at least two Ming ones as well as several European (three from the Dutch and one I believe from a Swiss working for the VOC, written in German).

Detail comparison:
1) (Dutch, with English translation) Neglected Formosa: 4,000 Chinese vs 240 Dutch, Chinese using bows & arrows.

2) (Dutch) De Dagregisters van het Kasteel Zeelandia: "unspecified number of Chinese troops from three junks + unspecified reinforcement" vs 250 Dutch + several Dutch ships and sampans (using swivel guns on the boats for fire support). Chinese using small cannons from breastwork.

3) (Swiss) Reise nach Java, Formosa, Vorder-Indien und Ceylon: Numerous Chinese junks + unspecified Chinese troops from the junks, 200 Dutch and three Dutch ships + several small Dutch boats and sampans (fire support). Chinese had 50 or more "Passen" or "Doppelhaggen" (swivel gun and wall gun) deployed on breastwork, as well as rockets (feurpfejlen).

4) (Chinese) 臺灣外記: 500 Chinese gunners, 200 small cannons, 500 ambushers (rattan shieldmen), twenty small junks (that ignored the battle and attacked Dutch fortress directly as diversion to distract Dutch troops on the field) vs unspecified number of Dutch troops.

5) (Chinese) 從征實錄: Unspecified number of Chinese troops vs "several hundred" Dutch. Details of the battle not recorded.

6) (Dutch) Diary of Philippus Daniel Meij van Meijensteen, a Dutch geographer captured by Koxinga for nearly the entire duration of the war, and acted as Koxinga's translator/land surveyor: "Numerous Chinese junks" vs three Dutch ships. Account of land battle not given.


Only one account mention Chinese using arrow at all (which unfortunately is the most well-known one, as it is translated to English), while others describe the Chinese using firearms. In any case, Chinese couldn't have fielded 4,000 troops using only small junks as transport, but all accounts otherwise mostly agree with each others on the more important events (Thomas Pedel as the Dutch leader, Chinese ambush with swords, a Dutch ship named Hector got blown to pieces etc).

[Incanur]

Well, the Dutch claimed that a well-armed company could face off a Chinese troop 25 times larger, if the latter were armed just with bows, swords, polearms and paper armor.

One Dutch source claims Koxinga's archers were comparable to Dutch riflemen. What's the source you're referring to?

A Chinese source from the same book describes how Ming troops who only had firearms tended to lose against to Manchu cavalry and their bows and arrows, which were deadly within thirty paces. The Chinese troops that did the best had thick sleeping quilts to defend them from arrows.

Taken as a whole, there's a mountain of evidence that bows were martially effective in China and surrounding regions at least through the 17th century. The Qing military used a combination of bows and firearms, in some cases equipping soldiers with both a bow and a firearm.

It's possible the Dutch source above is inaccurate, but I doubt it given the bow's success across the Chinese region in the 17th century.

[wolflance]

One Dutch source claims Koxinga's archers were comparable to Dutch riflemen. What's the source you're referring to?

I believe the one cited by Clistenes and the one given by you are actually from the same source - the Neglected Formosa.

[rrgg]

Taken as a whole, there's a mountain of evidence that bows were martially effective in China and surrounding regions at least through the 17th century. The Qing military used a combination of bows and firearms, in some cases equipping soldiers with both a bow and a firearm.

The arrows could still wound or kill, especially when combined with a fast horse to quickly get into range. It was also a weapon that they were already very familiar with and it didn't requite spending a lot of money on powder during training.

[Incanur]

The narrative I recall, from reading a translation and secondary sources, is that the Dutch (particularly Captain Thomas Pedel) thought they could defeat much larger numbers of Chinese troops with ease until they faced Koxinga's (Zheng Chenggong's) hardened veterans. Then they lost.

Edit: Koxinga certainly had a massive numerical advantage & that was why his forces won so convincingly in open confrontations. The Dutch fortress held out for some time, because Dutch artillery was definitely better and it was a quality defensive position. There was at least one (I think nighttime?) skirmish were Dutch musketeers/riflemen did at least decently against opposing archers. But if you look at all the factors combined, it's a solid showing for the bow. Bows aren't optimized for sieges by any stretch of the imagination, but Koxinga's archers nonetheless served well enough to impress. Manchu/Qing armies used muskets and artillery, but archery remained a prized military skill even through the 19th century. It was laughable at the end, and presumably a matter of cultural inertia, but Manchu/Qing armies tended to win in the 17th and 18th centuries.

[wolflance]

The narrative I recall, from reading a translation and secondary sources, is that the Dutch (particularly Captain Thomas Pedel) thought they could defeat much larger numbers of Chinese troops with ease until they faced Koxinga's (Zheng Chenggong's) hardened veterans. Then they lost.

Yes, that's what I think as well.

As a trivia, it is quite well-known that Koxinga was eventually deified by the Chinese, but lesser known is that several Hollanders are also deified (usually as lesser gate guardians that work for deified Koxinga). Among them also include a Dutch princess (because why not?) named Magriet.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

The 19th Century adventurer, Sir Richard Burton, stated in his 1884 work The Book of the Sword that the yataghan was the best-designed sword out there. Was he accurate, or was that merely his opinion?

[Max_Killjoy]

The 19th Century adventurer, Sir Richard Burton, stated in his 1884 work The Book of the Sword that the yataghan was the best-designed sword out there. Was he accurate, or was that merely his opinion?

Eh, it's a sword, it has tradeoffs with other sword designs.

The same basic forward-curve shape can be seen in the ancient xiphos or falcata, although the yataghan is a bit leaner.

If its design was good for the techniques it was used with, and the quality of construction was good, then it was a good sword. If the design was mismatched or the quality was poor, it was not so good.

[Vinyadan]

Has anyone heard about the recent Status-6 buzz? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status...purpose_System I don't know if it's actually doable, but it sounds like the subject of a cool storyline.

[gkathellar]

The 19th Century adventurer, Sir Richard Burton, stated in his 1884 work The Book of the Sword that the yataghan was the best-designed sword out there. Was he accurate, or was that merely his opinion?

"This weapon is the best" assertions virtually always reflect the biases and experiences of the speaker, rather than any verifiable truth - at least in a dueling/skirmishing setting. Weapons exist in the context of the techniques employed with them, what they have to compete with, social factors surrounding their possession and use, and the defensive measures that can be taken against them.

[Haighus]

Yeah, I think that at best, a weapon can be the most ideal form for a specific role, but that always comes with trade offs that make it perform worse in other situations.

Within this context, the yataghan could perhaps be considered the best form of cavalry sabre in the role of striking lightly armoured infantry from horseback, but I'm sure many would disagree with that (and did, considering how most sabers were shaped without the forward curve, and many had different hilts and guards). It is also far from ideal for fighting heavily armoured opponents, and poorly suited for thrusting.

It is not even the best pure cutting design, but it is a good design for cutting. Early falchions have blades even more specialised for raw slicing. I suspect the need for decent reach, and a blade that isn't too fragile, is the reason cavalry sabres don't have very wide blades like early falchions. Perhaps drawing the weapon from a scabbard and carrying it at the hip is also much more difficult with early falchions?

[Gnoman]

Unless I'm mixing up my swords again, the yataghan was notable for being extremely light compared to most swords of the era. Provided there is enough structural strength to hold up to use, a light blade can be extremely powerful.

[Brother Oni]

Has anyone heard about the recent Status-6 buzz? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status...purpose_System I don't know if it's actually doable, but it sounds like the subject of a cool storyline.

I haven't, but I've just heard about the proposed new 'Sea Hunter' class unmanned ASW drone ship: link.

I always found it interesting how weapons development mimicked the Red Queen hypothesis of evolutionary biology, where organisms are constantly adapting and evolving just to simply survive against other ever-evolving predators and competitor species, let alone gain an evolutionary advantage.

[Carl]

I haven't, but I've just heard about the proposed new 'Sea Hunter' class unmanned ASW drone ship: link.

I always found it interesting how weapons development mimicked the Red Queen hypothesis of evolutionary biology, where organisms are constantly adapting and evolving just to simply survive against other ever-evolving predators and competitor species, let alone gain an evolutionary advantage.

I'd be cautious of reading too much into that however. WHilst using a large number of smaller unmanned platforms is likely to seriously reduce manpower costs, it's nearly guarantee inflated electronics equipment costs as each platform needs certain things once over. So whilst it may save on operating costs it's likely to produce inflated build costs and potentially serious production rate bottlenecks.

[Lapak]

I'd be cautious of reading too much into that however. WHilst using a large number of smaller unmanned platforms is likely to seriously reduce manpower costs, it's nearly guarantee inflated electronics equipment costs as each platform needs certain things once over. So whilst it may save on operating costs it's likely to produce inflated build costs and potentially serious production rate bottlenecks.

Feels like a nod to Superiority is obligatory here.

[Carl]

It was a big part, (on the personel side), of that which did in the Japanese air power during WW2. They just couldn't train new pilots well enough, (unlike the allies they didn't pull veterans back to train new pilots, so the new recruits got very little first hand experiance), or fast enough.

And it's somthing that concerns me TBH about modern western militaries. Whilst most of what makes them tick strikes me as good practise, the sheer amount of time it takes to train new people and the expense of some pieces of kit makes me wonder if the system can really keep up with a sustained high intensity conflict. Most planning now seems to assume either short duration or low intensity with comparatively speaking low loss rates of men and material.

[Haighus]

A lot of the equipment used by Western militaries is also designed with crew safety in mind though, so that the personnel loss rates are hopefully minimised.

Even if we look at WWII, most crew survived vehicles being knocked out. I think that has only gotten better since, especially with the widespread adoption of equipment like the BV reducing the risk to crew when on downtime.

[Mike_G]

And it's somthing that concerns me TBH about modern western militaries. Whilst most of what makes them tick strikes me as good practise, the sheer amount of time it takes to train new people and the expense of some pieces of kit makes me wonder if the system can really keep up with a sustained high intensity conflict. Most planning now seems to assume either short duration or low intensity with comparatively speaking low loss rates of men and material.

For over sixty years, all our fights have been low intensity, so it makes sense to build better, safer, more expensive stuff in lower numbers so our troops better survive low intensity fights that we get in than build for hypothetical fights we haven't had in a long time.

The gear adapts to the mission we do. More defense against IEDs than MBTs makes a lot of sense for what we're doing right now. And fewer body bags coming home next year is a big deal.

If we fought another WWI or WWII, we couldn't sustain our current tech or training in massive numbers. But you see that even in the World Wars. Basic training was shortened, weapons were modified to be made faster and cheaper, like the stamped parts of the M3 SMG versus the expensive Thompson. Later Thompsons had simplified sights and so on.

But the big scary tech we do have make it unlikely that we'd fight a major war for every long. I can see a NATO/Russia conflict on th scale of WWII that doesn't go nuclear.

If the USSR has nukes in 1940, I think they'd have pushed the button waaaay before Stalingrad.

[Carl]

For over sixty years, all our fights have been low intensity, so it makes sense to build better, safer, more expensive stuff in lower numbers so our troops better survive low intensity fights that we get in than build for hypothetical fights we haven't had in a long time.

The gear adapts to the mission we do. More defense against IEDs than MBTs makes a lot of sense for what we're doing right now. And fewer body bags coming home next year is a big deal.

If we fought another WWI or WWII, we couldn't sustain our current tech or training in massive numbers. But you see that even in the World Wars. Basic training was shortened, weapons were modified to be made faster and cheaper, like the stamped parts of the M3 SMG versus the expensive Thompson. Later Thompsons had simplified sights and so on.

But the big scary tech we do have make it unlikely that we'd fight a major war for every long. I can see a NATO/Russia conflict on th scale of WWII that doesn't go nuclear.

If the USSR has nukes in 1940, I think they'd have pushed the button waaaay before Stalingrad.

Don't get me wrong i'm not saying we couldn't adapt to such a fight, (or that i think it's likely, it's more the don;t get caught out mentality on that part), but that i worry there will be so much institutional inertia that much like Germany in WW2 too much of the people who mater won't be able to make the leap to realising that trying to do things to the utmost isn't necessarily as important as getting the most cost effective solution. Which is not a very nice thing to talk about when most cost effective probably means more losses for the troops using them i admit.

At the same time i agree there are good reasons to use such a mentality right now for the most part.

[Gnoman]

Based on your choice of analogy, you're operating under some flawed assumptions. WWII Germany didn't lose because they were "trying to do things to the utmost" instead of looking for the most cost-effective solution. WWII Germany lost because they were massively outweighed, and because their equipment was on par at best with what the Allies were using.

[Mr Beer]

Based on your choice of analogy, you're operating under some flawed assumptions. WWII Germany didn't lose because they were "trying to do things to the utmost" instead of looking for the most cost-effective solution. WWII Germany lost because they were massively outweighed, and because their equipment was on par at best with what the Allies were using.

Agree, they lost because Hitler bit off more than he could chew with Barbarossa and then resolved every strategic crisis that followed by doubling down. Two fronts giving us trouble? No worries, lets declare war on the US!

[Haighus]

Based on your choice of analogy, you're operating under some flawed assumptions. WWII Germany didn't lose because they were "trying to do things to the utmost" instead of looking for the most cost-effective solution. WWII Germany lost because they were massively outweighed, and because their equipment was on par at best with what the Allies were using.

There are several examples with the German military having equipment that was more than on par with the Allies' gear, it just isn't typically in the areas people think of (tanks). For example, the German small arms had some examples much more modern and practical than the Allies- in particular the sturmgewehr and Mg42 being concepts that changed the way modern infantry were armed. If the stg44 was not delayed in deployment, it probably could've had a bigger impact on infantry engagements. Most of the other small arms is good but not better than the Allies' equivalents, and often more expensive (such as the Mp40 being fairly equivalent to a Thompson in being good but expensive), and the K98 being a very good bolt action which is probably a little better than a Mosin-Nagant, but a little worse as a battlefield weapon than a Lee-Enfield or M1 Garand (although the K98 was good for marksman duties).

Their man-portable anti-tank weapons were also very good, and the panzerfaust was an unusual German example of a cost-effective, cheap but individually not so great weapon.

This doesn't change that Germany was outproduced industrially, and made some huge strategic blunders that cost them a lot, but they definitely could've optimised their industrial output to produce the most cost-effective military gear, and wasted less on fancy tanks.

[Carl]

Based on your choice of analogy, you're operating under some flawed assumptions. WWII Germany didn't lose because they were "trying to do things to the utmost" instead of looking for the most cost-effective solution. WWII Germany lost because they were massively outweighed, and because their equipment was on par at best with what the Allies were using.

I think you need to check some of my prior posts, i'm well aware of the strategic reasons Germany lost WW2. But it's also widely agreed they lost it much faster than they otherwise would because their production pipeline was a mess because of heir focus on doing everything "just so", and on allways pushing the tech curve. (It also caught them out in other ways with overengineered items but thats a whole other ballgame to what i'm discussing).

[Haighus]

The 19th Century adventurer, Sir Richard Burton, stated in his 1884 work The Book of the Sword that the yataghan was the best-designed sword out there. Was he accurate, or was that merely his opinion?

Coincidentally I have just come across this video on Burton, which gives me much less faith in his opinion on swords. I think it is merely his opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRZJxGi8Z44

[Vinyadan]

This doesn't change that Germany was outproduced industrially, and made some huge strategic blunders that cost them a lot, but they definitely could've optimised their industrial output to produce the most cost-effective military gear, and wasted less on fancy tanks.

That's a big point, Germany entered war economy very late. In 1942, weapon factories were working on one shift, and very few women were employed. There also were power struggles within Hitler's court, which meant that Speer, who more or less doubled weapon production after his appointment, had to be very watchful not to be ousted and his special powers ransacked by rivals.

In general, I think that there simply aren't the conditions for a WW2 kind of war for Western countries. W-European powers are peaceful concerning each other, and are way too large for any other territorially close enemy that isn't Russia, and a war with Russia isn't going to revolve around conventional weapons anyway. To be on par with the USA, it would take Russia, China and India to somehow become allied and go to war together. Beside the obvious question (why should India go to war against the USA?), there also is a less obvious problem with this: Russia and China are rival powers, too, and this makes for bad allies. They really don't have much in common, beside wanting to be an alternative to US dominance, but they also want to be an alternative to each other. And then we again have the atomic deal, which would make such a war look very different from previous wars.

Probably the most likely war of this kind would be in Korea, if there were a US invasion, with China joining the other side, like they did in the Fifties. However, even China (and Russia) are going for smaller, more professional, more technological armed forces.

[VoxRationis]

In the games I play, I typically see scale armor presented as out-and-out inferior to mail. Is this so? Does mail provide better protection than scale, either outright or on a per weight basis? Are there any sorts of things against which scale is a superior defense?