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

[Pauly]

What's the worlds most popular self-loadin pistol/round that fires a bigger cartridge than 9x19? I'm not asking for best, more looking for a hybrid solution of the most-typical, International and relevant to the current world.

IE, I'm not sure about using the M1911 as the archtypical example of such a pistol, I know that moves me against the gun-prophet JMB, but it's a dated pistol with unusually small capacity.

---

*watches half of Brent0331's extensive camo series* (i'd watch more but his editing sucks)
I'm talking from a pure hiding-effectiveness standpoint. I don't care about a uniform looking cool or lame. I'm aware that 'north texas woods' isn't representative of everywhere.

It seems evident that MTP>Multicam (that they both come from the same company, and multicam was chosen first, interests me) , even though those patterns look so similar up close. I am wondering, what are the best -generic- camo patterns? I would've thought brown-dominated patterns would be best, but his videos show some desert patterns working well in the forests and some forest patterns working well with the desert, greens and tans doing well.

Now, this is going to be something to tip toe lightly around, but is modern German camo an improvement over old Waffen SS stuff? (I realise that, in his non-44 dot SS video, Brent cycles through different SS camo and more specific patterns going to be better than more universal patterns, and you've got the 'northern texas woods' issue) Some of that stuff was seriously making me think the guy in front of me was wearing an invisibility cloak.

Does anyone have an opinion on -generic best all round pattern- that isn't tinged by nationalism (because caw, that's always a problem when this stuff's discussed) We're just discussing patterns here; not the histories or nations that use them.

I”ll leave the ammo questions to others.

With regards to camo there are a variety of schools of thought.

1) Generic camo. Something that will help you match the environment generally. The British khaki is the start of this type of scheme. Pros- cheap, easy, effective. Cons - not great at anything. Can be out of place.

2) Specific matching camo. Colors and patterns designed to match a particular environment,. Pros great for specific environs. Cons expensive, becomes anti-camo if you’re in the wrong environment

3) Disruptive. The idea isn’t to hide, but to make the object not look like what it is. Often combines light and dark colors. Can be very effective, but is nullified when the target is acquired.

[Pauly]

I”ll leave the ammo questions to others.

With regards to camo there are a variety of schools of thought.

1) Generic camo. Something that will help you match the environment generally. The British khaki is the start of this type of scheme. Pros- cheap, easy, effective. Cons - not great at anything. Can be out of place.

2) Specific matching camo. Colors and patterns designed to match a particular environment,. Pros great for specific environs. Cons expensive, becomes anti-camo if you’re in the wrong environment

3) Disruptive. The idea isn’t to hide, but to make the object not look like what it is. Often combines light and dark colors. Can be very effective, but is nullified when the target is acquired.

Sorry got interrupted before I could finish.

The German WW2 camo was very effective at short to medium ranges if the wearer wasn’t moving. At long ranges the wearer became a silhouette as the pattern blurred together when it was beyond the range for the eyeball to differentiate the pattern.

Disruptive patterns are better when the wearer is moving. You can tell that something is moving, but it isn’t clearly a soldier. These patterns work best with baggy clothing that obscures the outline. Disruptive patterns are less effective at close ranges and more effective at longer ranges.

There’s also obscuring camo. Which is where everything is one dark color. Which is used not to stop people seeing you but so that people can’t tell what you’re doing. I am unaware of any personal camo schemes that use this, it has been used on ships.

[Gnoman]

What's the worlds most popular self-loadin pistol/round that fires a bigger cartridge than 9x19? I'm not asking for best, more looking for a hybrid solution of the most-typical, International and relevant to the current world.

For popular autoloaders stronger than 9x19 Parabellum, you basically have 3 choices. .45 Automatic Colt Pistol, .40 Smith and Wesson (also known as 10mm FBI), and 10mm Auto. Everything else (in autoloaders) is a special purpose round with niche application.

Of these, the most popular by far is .45ACP, followed by .40 S&W. 10mm has never gotten entrenched as a service round, because it (and the gun needed to fire it) is right at the edge of "reasonable for most people." .40 is somewhat popular with police for various reasons, but most are switching back to 9mm.

[Mike_G]

Just found this video of spadroon vs bayonet sparring. It's pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

[Kiero]

Just found this video of spadroon vs bayonet sparring. It's pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

As the old maxim goes, "point beats edge". Though why you'd even bother trying to cut with a blade as light as a spadroon, I don't know.

Why do they need so much body padding for weapons as light as those? Also if you're inside the tip of the bayonet, why wouldn't you just grab the musket barrel?

[Mike_G]

As the old maxim goes, "point beats edge". Though why you'd even bother trying to cut with a blade as light as a spadroon, I don't know.

Why do they need so much body padding for weapons as light as those? Also if you're inside the tip of the bayonet, why wouldn't you just grab the musket barrel?

They do grab the musket. A lot. Not sure how far you watched. And a spadroon was a cut a nd thrust sword. It replaced the smallsword specifically so that officers would have a sword that could cut. It's not a great chopping weapon, but it can cut, the manuals all include cuts as well and thrusts, and cuts to, say, the hand or the head would not need to be very heavy to give a good wound

The nylon HEMA weapons hit harder than you think. The weights are fairly realistic and the plastic is pretty rigid, so the padding is quite reasonable

[Kiero]

They do grab the musket. A lot. Not sure how far you watched. And a spadroon was a cut a nd thrust sword. It replaced the smallsword specifically so that officers would have a sword that could cut. It's not a great chopping weapon, but it can cut, the manuals all include cuts as well and thrusts, and cuts to, say, the hand or the head would not need to be very heavy to give a good wound

The nylon HEMA weapons hit harder than you think. The weights are fairly realistic and the plastic is pretty rigid, so the padding is quite reasonable

I was posting as I was watching, and did indeed note a lot more barrel-grabbing later on. One of the guys is better than the other, with either weapon. I can see why frontline officers in the Napoleonic era preferred sabres, I wouldn't want to be facing enemy infantry with something as flimsy as a spadroon.

The padding seems to severely inhibit their movement and general level of activity. I don't imagine they're very comfortable, and they must be pouring with sweat underneath.

[Mike_G]

I was posting as I was watching, and did indeed note a lot more barrel-grabbing later on. One of the guys is better than the other, with either weapon. I can see why frontline officers in the Napoleonic era preferred sabres, I wouldn't want to be facing enemy infantry with something as flimsy as a spadroon.

The padding seems to severely inhibit their movement and general level of activity. I don't imagine they're very comfortable, and they must be pouring with sweat underneath.

The padding isn't restrictive or uncomfortable in any meaningful way. It is hot as hell though.

I have gotten significant bruises and people have had fingers broken in HEMA sparring, so it's absolutley necessary.

It is hard to parry a bayonet thrust with a sword that light, just because of the mass of the musket, so as you say, the sabre was the first choice of many officers.

[Kiero]

The padding isn't restrictive or uncomfortable in any meaningful way. It is hot as hell though.

I have gotten significant bruises and people have had fingers broken in HEMA sparring, so it's absolutley necessary.

It is hard to parry a bayonet thrust with a sword that light, just because of the mass of the musket, so as you say, the sabre was the first choice of many officers.

"Hot as hell" is definitionally uncomfortable.

I can see the point in gloves and helmets, maybe even kneepads. But I'd rather be comfortable than lose all the ability to vent heat from my core.

[Brother Oni]

"Hot as hell" is definitionally uncomfortable.

I can see the point in gloves and helmets, maybe even kneepads. But I'd rather be comfortable than lose all the ability to vent heat from my core.

Two things: 1) with thrusting weapons, you want more padding than you think, else you're going to be covered in bruises (all that force is concentrated on a small area) and 2) a H&S requirement so that they're covered by their club's personal injury insurance.

[Pauly]

It is hard to parry a bayonet thrust with a sword that light, just because of the mass of the musket, so as you say, the sabre was the first choice of many officers.

There’s a reason why the sabre was a cavalry troopers weapon and the spadroon was an officer’s sidearm.

At a certain point you don’t want an officer’s arms to be too effective. You want the officer to be thinking about C3I, not rushing off to chop up random enemies.

[Kiero]

Two things: 1) with thrusting weapons, you want more padding than you think, else you're going to be covered in bruises (all that force is concentrated on a small area) and 2) a H&S requirement so that they're covered by their club's personal injury insurance.

Fair enough; ultimately armed combat has never appealed to me as much as unarmed. I carry my limbs around with me all the time, I can't carry weapons outside of the training context.

There’s a reason why the sabre was a cavalry troopers weapon and the spadroon was an officer’s sidearm.

At a certain point you don’t want an officer’s arms to be too effective. You want the officer to be thinking about C3I, not rushing off to chop up random enemies.

The point was that many serving infantry officers dispensed with the standard issue spadroon in favour of a cavalry sabre. Rifle officers, for example, were issued the light cavalry sabre, rather than a spadroon, because it was expected they would get mixed up in melee, rather than be walking up and down the line shouting orders.

[Mike_G]

There’s a reason why the sabre was a cavalry troopers weapon and the spadroon was an officer’s sidearm.

At a certain point you don’t want an officer’s arms to be too effective. You want the officer to be thinking about C3I, not rushing off to chop up random enemies.

The infantry officer sword was redesigned often to make it more effective. There was never a desire to give them a sword that would discourage them from using it. The spadroon was supposed to be a weapon more suited to fighting than the smallsword many were carrying, as it was heavier and shaped to cut as well as thrust. That took away some of the stiffness that made it a good thrusting sword, so it might not have been a good trade off, but the intent was to issue a better sword, not a worse one

They generally didn't carry a musket, because they were supposed to command their men rather than worry about shooting the enemy, but once you get to melee, there's not a lot of command and control you can do. You want the weapon that will give you the best chance to survive.

AS Kiero has aid, during the Napoleonic wars, many officers did choose a sabre instead, and the "flank officers sword" was adopted by light infantry and grenadier officers, as well as rifle officers. It was a basically slightly shorter and lighter 1796 cavalry sabre, which is a better weapon for battlefield use.

[Mike_G]

"Hot as hell" is definitionally uncomfortable.

I can see the point in gloves and helmets, maybe even kneepads. But I'd rather be comfortable than lose all the ability to vent heat from my core.

Taking a thrust with the stiff-ish synthetic swords is something like being jabbed with a pool cue. After five minutes, you'd want the jacket. Cuts that don't land on a bony spot just sting and leave bruises, but thrusts will fold you up and take the wind out of you.

And the other thing is that these guys also do steel sword sparring and use sabres and longswords and a variety of HEMA stuff. The spadroon is probably the lightest thing they use, so that gear is just what they wear when sparring. If they only did spadroon, they could maybe use a lighter jacket, like a foil jacket

You get used to it. I've fenced for decades, and you move fine, you just sweat like a pig. But the only thing worse than fencing in a sweaty jacket is fencing without a jacket.

[jintoya]

How should a siege weapon be generally classified for game usage?

In the middle of an Asian themed campaign of 3.5 and the hwacha came up, but neither of us has any parallels to draw from.
It's not launching projectiles larger than what a person could reasonably throw... It's kinda like a mass javelin shooter... So, is it a siege weapon, or some odd mid-ground?

[Brother Oni]

How should a siege weapon be generally classified for game usage?

In the middle of an Asian themed campaign of 3.5 and the hwacha came up, but neither of us has any parallels to draw from.
It's not launching projectiles larger than what a person could reasonably throw... It's kinda like a mass javelin shooter... So, is it a siege weapon, or some odd mid-ground?

A hwacha is a crew served weapon, so I'd say it counts as a siege weapon.

While the individual projectiles aren't that large, they are being chucked to a range further than a person can throw without assistance - the hwacha has a range of 100-450m depending on weather/elevation and javelins have a range of 15-70m depending on the exact type of javelin. You'd need an atlatl or some other mechanical aid to match an hwacha's lower estimated range.

In game terms, I'd possibly use something like a ballista as a basis, reducing the power of the attack but giving it an AOE effect. Depending on your game world, you may or may not want to remove the explosive charge from the fire arrows.

[GM_3826]

What is the difference between a "chain shirt" and "chain mail," in practical terms? I can't find a whole lot of information on chain mail that isn't a chain shirt (i.e. hauberk)

[The Jack]

What is the difference between a "chain shirt" and "chain mail," in practical terms? I can't find a whole lot of information on chain mail that isn't a chain shirt (i.e. hauberk)

They're both chain, or mail.

What the book is trying to say is that the 'chain shirt' is T-shirt levels of protection, whilst the 'chain mail' covers your arms and you've got chain leggings and your suit might include mittens and foot protection. It's not a onesie, but it's close in protection.

These games are head-protection agnostic usually.

[GM_3826]

They're both chain, or mail.

What the book is trying to say is that the 'chain shirt' is T-shirt levels of protection, whilst the 'chain mail' covers your arms and you've got chain leggings and your suit might include mittens and foot protection. It's not a onesie, but it's close in protection.

These games are head-protection agnostic usually.

Thank you for your help.

[Pauly]

The infantry officer sword was redesigned often to make it more effective. There was never a desire to give them a sword that would discourage them from using it. The spadroon was supposed to be a weapon more suited to fighting than the smallsword many were carrying, as it was heavier and shaped to cut as well as thrust. That took away some of the stiffness that made it a good thrusting sword, so it might not have been a good trade off, but the intent was to issue a better sword, not a worse one

They generally didn't carry a musket, because they were supposed to command their men rather than worry about shooting the enemy, but once you get to melee, there's not a lot of command and control you can do. You want the weapon that will give you the best chance to survive.

AS Kiero has aid, during the Napoleonic wars, many officers did choose a sabre instead, and the "flank officers sword" was adopted by light infantry and grenadier officers, as well as rifle officers. It was a basically slightly shorter and lighter 1796 cavalry sabre, which is a better weapon for battlefield use.

I wasn’t suggesting that there was a deliberate intention to give officers an ineffective sword. More that an officer’s arms are designed as personal defense weapons, not weapons to attack the enemy.

Throughout many historical periods officers who were inclined to get into close quarters actions upgraded their arms to be over and above those that were issued. The basic point is that armies from about the 1600s onwards have been giving officers arms designed for personal defense and a subset of officers have deemed this ordnance issued set to be inadequate and sought to upgrade.

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

[fusilier]

Just found this video of spadroon vs bayonet sparring. It's pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKbOj3i0rQ8

Thank you for sharing. I wonder what bayonet manual they were using? Some of it seems familiar to me, but there's a lot missing. The musket was definitely much lighter than a real one. ;-)

[fusilier]

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

My assumption is that a carbine or musketoon is easier to carry on the back without it getting in the way of those other things they were supposed to be doing. It's more handy when you are digging a sap, or constructing a bridge, where a full length musket would either have to be left behind, or if carried would be constantly getting snagged on things. If you really wanted to discourage your engineers from getting into a firefight, you wouldn't give them firearms at all. I think they primarily relied upon their training and professionalism to prevent them from engaging in combat.

[Pauly]

My assumption is that a carbine or musketoon is easier to carry on the back without it getting in the way of those other things they were supposed to be doing. It's more handy when you are digging a sap, or constructing a bridge, where a full length musket would either have to be left behind, or if carried would be constantly getting snagged on things. If you really wanted to discourage your engineers from getting into a firefight, you wouldn't give them firearms at all. I think they primarily relied upon their training and professionalism to prevent them from engaging in combat.

That’s basically what the British did in WW2, with a few exceptions such as with the Airborne Divisions.

[Vinyadan]

I have read that the second issue of the British spadroon (1796) was actually a remarkably bad weapon. It was too flexible to thrust, too light to cut, its handle was built like a smallsword's, making cutting even harder, the hand protection was too flimsy and would be easily bashed in, and the guard was sometimes hinged, so that it broke or closed when struck and left the hand exposed.

Cavalié Mercer, who was an artillery officer at Waterloo and would later become a general, wrote that people rather went with a dirk instead.

[Mike_G]

Thank you for sharing. I wonder what bayonet manual they were using? Some of it seems familiar to me, but there's a lot missing. The musket was definitely much lighter than a real one. ;-)

I looked up the Black Fencer musket and bayonet. It weighs about 5 pounds, so yeah, probably half what a real one did, but I think that's reasonable as a safety measure. I wouldn't want to get hit with a ten pound weapon, blunt or not. The fact that even the trainer is more than twice the weight of the sword still makes it hard to parry.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wasn’t suggesting that there was a deliberate intention to give officers an ineffective sword. More that an officer’s arms are designed as personal defense weapons, not weapons to attack the enemy.

Throughout many historical periods officers who were inclined to get into close quarters actions upgraded their arms to be over and above those that were issued. The basic point is that armies from about the 1600s onwards have been giving officers arms designed for personal defense and a subset of officers have deemed this ordnance issued set to be inadequate and sought to upgrade.

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

I thought it was so that engineers would be armed to defend themselves, but not have to carry a large weapon on top of everything else, have it get in their way all the time, etc.

(Reminds me of playing the original Company of Heroes, and ending up with an US engineer team looting and using a dropped MG42 because all my other units in that mission had an add-on already... you could almost see the shock on the little enemies' faces when the AI saw "engineer team" and charged, only to find them armed with the "buzzsaw".)

[Kiero]

I'm reading a story set in the Thirty Years War, so mid-17th century, which mentions several characters having "sleeve knives". As in concealed knives attached to a wrist sheath. Was that really a thing?

I know there's the old saw about the practise of hand-shaking/grasping wrists being a way to demonstrate you aren't hiding any weapons up there. But did people actually do it?

In a similar vein, were boot knives a real thing? As in outside of Hollywood, was it a regular practise for people to carry small knives inside a boot? I can see the potential value in having concealed backup weapons, but there's a definite ergonomic issue with some of those locations.

[jintoya]

A hwacha is a crew served weapon, so I'd say it counts as a siege weapon.

While the individual projectiles aren't that large, they are being chucked to a range further than a person can throw without assistance - the hwacha has a range of 100-450m depending on weather/elevation and javelins have a range of 15-70m depending on the exact type of javelin. You'd need an atlatl or some other mechanical aid to match an hwacha's lower estimated range.

In game terms, I'd possibly use something like a ballista as a basis, reducing the power of the attack but giving it an AOE effect. Depending on your game world, you may or may not want to remove the explosive charge from the fire arrows.

That was the direction we were leaning with it too, thank you for confirming what we suspected.

[Brother Oni]

I know there's the old saw about the practise of hand-shaking/grasping wrists being a way to demonstrate you aren't hiding any weapons up there. But did people actually do it?

The way I heard this one, it was for checking that the person you were meeting wasn't wearing mail under their clothes. While carrying a weapon is commonplace, wearing armour generally means you're expecting trouble (either causing it or expecting it to happen), for example, the still-in-force Statute of 1313 making it illegal to wear armour inside the Houses of Parliament.

That was the direction we were leaning with it too, thank you for confirming what we suspected.

No worries. Always happy to help people kill stuff in the most effective and efficient way possible.

[Storm Bringer]

I wasn’t suggesting that there was a deliberate intention to give officers an ineffective sword. More that an officer’s arms are designed as personal defense weapons, not weapons to attack the enemy.

Throughout many historical periods officers who were inclined to get into close quarters actions upgraded their arms to be over and above those that were issued. The basic point is that armies from about the 1600s onwards have been giving officers arms designed for personal defense and a subset of officers have deemed this ordnance issued set to be inadequate and sought to upgrade.

It’s similar to why engineers were often given carbines instead of full muskets or rifles. It’s to keep them focused on doing their job, not getting engaged in fights that detract them from their primary mission.

A few stories I have heard told (though I cant remember where I heard it):

during this scene in the flim a bridge too far, we see a boat-based assault to force a river crossing. The major commanding the assault is seen getting stuck in, throwing grenades, shooting germans and generally fighting. I am told that the man who lead the historical assault did not fire his weapon during the engagement, as he was far too busy commanding the unit and trying to keep the assault moving and under control to waste time shooting for himself.

Also During Operation MARKET GARDEN, Lt. General Browning, commander of the British 1 Airborne Corps, became separated form his HQ during the drop and had to spend several hours in the initial stages creeping across the Netherlands avoiding german patrols and trying to link up with his own forces. at one point he was discovered by a german infantryman and he shot the german with his pistol, and became the highest ranking soldier, on either side, to have killed an enemy in combat with his service pistol.

In the band of brothers miniseries, during the advance into germany in spring 1945, Maj. Winters, while brooding over having shot a very young german during an attack, realised that he'd not shot his rifle in combat for months, and had in fact managed to make it though the entire of the siege of Bastogne in the Battle of the Bulge and not use his rifle once.


the point of these stories is that an officers weapon isn't the gun or sword in his hand. The main weapon of an officer is the troops under his command, and that is the weapon he should be wielding to win the battle. his personal weapon is just to get him out of surprise situations.