New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 24 of 50 FirstFirst ... 14151617181920212223242526272829303132333449 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 720 of 1473
  1. - Top - End - #691
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DerKommissar View Post
    Many great inventions have been accidents, but its important to document and learn from them. But I see where you are aiming at and of course there was lot of mumbo jumbo and ridiculous theories (from our perspective) going on. I just wouldnt go as far as discarding all as witch doctor chants - and if so: modern science has quite some similarities to that as well...

    plus as already said upthread and as a recurring topic in this thread: it always depends on where, what, who, when, etc.
    I would be very careful about discarding witch doctor chants as bad medicine. Many have proved to be very effective measuring aids for working with substances with very fine lines between effective and harmful doses and/or time sensitive procedures (in societies who do do not tools or sometimes even mathematics that could take said measurements). Anecdotally of course, because all the money in pharmaceutical companies can't compile everything witch doctors know before most of them die out and said knowledge is lost. And they're trying. The amount of useful medicines trapped in the heads of doctors in indigenous rainforest tribes easily exceeds the amount of said medicines known everywhere else in the world combined as recently as a century ago. Unfortunately they generally don't speak a language any trained scientist can understand and don't know how to impart their knowledge in a rapid and organized way when they were taught it over decades of apprenticeship. Nor do most of them have apprentices since their tribesmen are often dying out or just not interested in succeeding them.
    Last edited by Mabn; 2019-02-12 at 01:44 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #692
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

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

    Quote Originally Posted by SleepyShadow View Post
    Good thinking on the church basement. Sounds like the sort of stuff our GM would pull. He says he feels bad for killing characters, then traps us in a cellar with a shambling mound that had 50 hp more than normal. We were level 2 at the time (we are level 3 now), so that's how we lost two characters out of the five that died last session.

    Yeah, the vampire is after a particular village girl NPC. He's also after some random witch hunter NPC hiding out in the basement of the local windmill. He's also really mad at my character for "disrupting the status quo". I guess I could hide the two NPCs in the church after we clear it for secret tunnels.
    You could use the girl and/or witch hunter as bait to lure the vampire into a kill box. If you’lve only got a limited supply of stuff that goes boom then you want to ensure the vampire will go to where you put it, not have to bring it to the vampire.

  3. - Top - End - #693
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2016

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

    If you have some time left for your preparation you could have a look at this book:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book)

    Its a swiss manual for civil resistence and AFAIK contains information on e.g. how to fortify civil buildings. But with the towns population basically set up against your party you‘d first should focus on getting them to work with you and your group before anything else.

  4. - Top - End - #694
    Banned
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    The Moral Low Ground

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mabn View Post
    The amount of useful medicines trapped in the heads of doctors in indigenous rainforest tribes easily exceeds the amount of said medicines known everywhere else in the world combined as recently as a century ago.
    Statements like this really aught to be given wider berth

  5. - Top - End - #695
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Vinyadan View Post

    Anyway, I think that we have a huge advantage compared to the Middle Ages, and that's statistics.
    Actually I would rather point to the scientific method as a big difference. The maths itself you coulda done with an abacus. But the scientific method means you drill down and isolate what actually causes an effect to the best of ones ability.
    But other things add up, our vastly greater ability to observe macro- and microlevel phenomena*1. Our ability to share and disseminate knowledge*2.

    We have a trifecta of being able to observe better, to be able to share those observations to make them more accurate and the scientific method to pin it all on.


    *1 stuff like the microscope, massspectrometers, MRIs and whatnot, being able to see organic/chemical reactions
    *2 bookprinting, Internet, scientific conferences, not dying after you made a discovery, having the means to spend time figuring stuff out

  6. - Top - End - #696
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SleepyShadow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Earth

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

    Quote Originally Posted by DerKommissar View Post
    If you have some time left for your preparation you could have a look at this book:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Resistance_(book)

    Its a swiss manual for civil resistence and AFAIK contains information on e.g. how to fortify civil buildings. But with the towns population basically set up against your party you‘d first should focus on getting them to work with you and your group before anything else.
    The book sounds pretty interesting. Thanks for the link

  7. - Top - End - #697
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2012

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Statements like this really aught to be given wider berth
    That was the berth. A century ago the number of known medicines was surprisingly small.

  8. - Top - End - #698
    Banned
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    The Moral Low Ground

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

    How do I greatsword?

    Use it as spear 1v1
    Swing it around like a madman against multiple opponents

    But what does it excel at? They're obviously one of the most expensive battlefield weapons you can give a person, so it's got to be really good at something to justify that, right?

    I've heard Scholargladiatora suggest it's good defensively, I've heard people say the japanese used theirs as anti-cav (and shogun 2 has them as charging units which seems very questionable) and apparently they're not so unwieldy if you're well trained in their use.

    Should I just assume it's just another weapon? Is it a great all-purpose weapon used sparingly only due to expense (and thus, if it were cheap, would entire armies prefer to use greatswords?) or is it a niche weapon that scores extra points because they all just look so impressive.



    Also.
    What weapons does one use if you're fighting in the mountains?
    Not -fighting on the flatland near the mountains- as so many real world cultures do, but -fighting on the paths and slopes of the mountains-

  9. - Top - End - #699
    Orc in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Right Behind You
    Gender
    Male

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

    if fighting in mountainous terrain you want weapons that are useful in skirmish order as broken ground can easily play merry heck with tight formations.

    That being said the most potent weapon (if you can arrange it) is the combination of gravity and military intelligence. If you know which pass the enemy will go through, and can get there sooner. (and also don't care about later navigability) You can cause them quite the casualty list with heavy things going downhill or better yet and engineered rockslide.
    Warning, this poster makes frequent use of jokes, snarks, and puns. He is mostly harmless and intends no offense.

  10. - Top - End - #700
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

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

    Great swords are a weapon that people doing reconstruction of the past are having a lot of difficulty working out how exactly they were used..
    Some common answers, which may or may not be right are
    - bodyguard work/defending choke points.
    - disrupting close formations of troops with pikes or other long pole arms.
    Generally speaking they seem have been used in few versus many situations, at least in Europe.

    In a one on one duel I would bet on the man with a pole axe (heavily armored fight) or spear (lightly armored fight). So as I see it there are better options if you are intending to fight one on one. Also zweihanders in the Landsknechts were famously ‘on double pay for half the time’ which indicates it was well known to be a weapon that lowered your life expectancy.

  11. - Top - End - #701
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    gkathellar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Beyond the Ninth Wave
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    How do I greatsword?

    Use it as spear 1v1
    Swing it around like a madman against multiple opponents

    But what does it excel at? They're obviously one of the most expensive battlefield weapons you can give a person, so it's got to be really good at something to justify that, right?

    I've heard Scholargladiatora suggest it's good defensively, I've heard people say the japanese used theirs as anti-cav (and shogun 2 has them as charging units which seems very questionable) and apparently they're not so unwieldy if you're well trained in their use.
    Greatswords are, first and foremost, swords. That means they're agile, versatile, well suited to defense, strong on the slash and the thrust, and they take ages to learn. Beyond that ... they're big. That means they have great reach and leverage, and can be faster in certain ways, but they're awkward to carry, hard to use in close quarters, and slower in all the other ways. That length also gives them additional usage options and gives them better options to contend with polearms in particular.

    This is a good initial sampling.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Should I just assume it's just another weapon? Is it a great all-purpose weapon used sparingly only due to expense (and thus, if it were cheap, would entire armies prefer to use greatswords?) or is it a niche weapon that scores extra points because they all just look so impressive.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "just another weapon." If someone has given you the impression that they were the King Of All Swords, that person was mistaken (swords are a democracy). Greatswords have advantages and disadvantages that make them more or less useful depending on context. In warfare they were seen mostly among shock troops and forlorn hopes, and in a civilian or paramilitary context had some presence among masters of arms and bodyguards. Equipping an entire army with them would be foolish, however, since the greatsword is neither a true spear nor a true sidearm (an enormous mass of men wielding big swords is not going to be nearly as useful as an enormous mass of men wielding pikes), and is heavy and difficult to carry and care for.

    EDIT: Notably, you can’t really sheathe or unsheathe a greatsword in any kind of hurry, which means it has to be carried over the shoulder when expecting any kind of action (you can imagine how well that’d go over with civil authorities while working as a bodyguard in an urban space). Even on the march, it can’t be kept at the belt, meaning it either has to be carried, strapped across the back, or placed in a cart. This is a feature shared with polearms, but the greatsword lacks a long haft to ease handling or a butt that can be easily rested on the ground. Essentially, the greatsword is, far more than most weapons, luggage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly View Post
    Also zweihanders in the Landsknechts were famously ‘on double pay for half the time’ which indicates it was well known to be a weapon that lowered your life expectancy.
    I've generally heard two explanations suggested: zweihander training was uncommon and valuable enough the mercenaries could afford to charge more, or just that soldiers with zweihanders were sent to do incredibly dangerous, stupid things (like charge pike blocks) and so were afforded various small privileges in their short careers. Both may be true.
    Last edited by gkathellar; 2019-02-23 at 10:53 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #702
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2012

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

    About two handed swords: I agree with the other posters on this. I would like to note the following: Two-handed swords where a 'rarity' (that is compared to lets say pikes) for reasons other than price. They are not extremely usefull, or that is other weapons suit a broader role (like long sword) or a more specific role (like pike).

    As others have mentioned in battle they seem to have been used to cut down/disrupt enemy pikes and disrupt formations. This I think is their main "role". It is true that they are also somewhat effective fighting against many (especially in an open space). But I think their size make them unsuited to be carried around normally and thus while they might be very effective at fighting off assailants on the street, I doubt that was their typical use or reason to exist.

  13. - Top - End - #703
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tobtor View Post
    About two handed swords: I agree with the other posters on this. I would like to note the following: Two-handed swords where a 'rarity' (that is compared to lets say pikes) for reasons other than price. They are not extremely usefull, or that is other weapons suit a broader role (like long sword) or a more specific role (like pike).

    As others have mentioned in battle they seem to have been used to cut down/disrupt enemy pikes and disrupt formations. This I think is their main "role". It is true that they are also somewhat effective fighting against many (especially in an open space). But I think their size make them unsuited to be carried around normally and thus while they might be very effective at fighting off assailants on the street, I doubt that was their typical use or reason to exist.
    As an informative note for the general reader: the longsword ("hand and a half" from the late 1800s terminology, "b*****d sword" in the first half 1900s and earlier D&D) is also a two-handed weapon (at least when the user wants it to be)... the "two handed sword" here is the "next size up", the greatsword, the zweihander, the older claymore. What gets called a "longsword" due to (earlier edition) D&D's horrid influence, etc, is something like an "arming sword" and various other single-handed longer-bladed swords.

    Admittedly there are a lot of retronyms flying around here, but the confusion between sword types gets deep in a hurry.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2019-02-23 at 09:32 AM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  14. - Top - End - #704
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Slovakia
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    How do I greatsword?
    But what does it excel at? They're obviously one of the most expensive battlefield weapons you can give a person, so it's got to be really good at something to justify that, right?
    They aren't that much more expensive when compared to other swords, the issue is that unless you have very good armor, you will be utterly hosed when faced with missile fire, so you need that armor. And that armor is expensive, therefore you want your expensive soldier to be good at taking out other expensive soldiers, and that's where polehammers outperform the twohander.

    Its niche is essentially fighting off many lightly armored opponents when you yourself have heavy armor or don't have to care about missile weapons. So yeah, disrupting pikes and bodyguard work looks legit from that point of view.

    What you could do is use either the polehammer or twohander as your main weapon depending on the opposition, the real world problem is that they are both unwieldy and you can therefore only carry one - seeing as armored opponents are a bigger problem, use a polehammer and have a falchion or a side sword as your secondary - those aren't as good as twohander, but can be carried easily.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    I've heard people say the japanese used theirs as anti-cav (and shogun 2 has them as charging units which seems very questionable)
    I have yet to see an actual, period source saying anything on nagamaki usage - the hold it like a katana and it's against cavalry seem to be based mostly on surviving traditions, and those are dicey (just look at how much chinese MAs are bastardized). It does make some sense as a compromise weapon to naginata - it allows you to slice at horse legs without coming too close to it (though this is only useful in a duel or skirmish), and it can be sued as a sword/spear hybrid up close.

    More interesting is the fact that Japanese governments supposedly never did crack down on them the way they regulated katanas, so perhaps we can see some explanation along the lines of tax evasion the way we have with german messer.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    and apparently they're not so unwieldy if you're well trained in their use.
    You don't have to be trained that much, once a guy has figured out how to perform proper basic strikes with a sword and how to chain them, he can use the twohander safely. They just aren't all that heavy, with the worst examples being in the 5kg range, most topping off at 4 kg. That's one bottle of coke per hand.



    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Should I just assume it's just another weapon?
    Yes. All weapons are. This thread is now solved.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Is it a great all-purpose weapon used sparingly only due to expense (and thus, if it were cheap, would entire armies prefer to use greatswords?) or is it a niche weapon that scores extra points because they all just look so impressive.
    It's more of a nich weapon, but you need to understand that all weapons are - they are designed to perform in a specific environment against specific range of targets. Any universal weapons will have the problem of being less good across the board against every target than specialist weapons. In the end, it's about tradition, fashion and finding a combination that works well enough - either for you or for most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Also.
    What weapons does one use if you're fighting in the mountains?
    Not -fighting on the flatland near the mountains- as so many real world cultures do, but -fighting on the paths and slopes of the mountains-
    Did some fights on the hills - it's not fun. Well, okay, it was fun, but only because no one died and we all got drunk the night after.

    Issue is with mobility, changing your position is tricky no matter where you are, so all melee weapons have trouble and ranged weapons are king - bows, crossbows, rocks, tree trunks rolled downhill and so on. Assuming there are trees, crossbows will be very effective, as you can pop out of cover to shoot and reload in cover - bows rate of fire will be less of an advantage when movement is slow.

    Formation weapons willl be at a disadvantage (spear and shield) or completely useless (pike) except in specific cases, usually involving a road or a plateau. Formation fighting as such will be almost impossible to pull off and skirmishing will reign, turning war in mountains into a hideous battle of attrition. You can also forget about communicating with your soldiers since you don't have a radio and messengers will have hell of a time.

    Oh, and cavalry is useless and heavily armored troops will get tired much, much faster - so will everyone, but extra 20 kilos of steel and restricted breathing doesn't help.

    What I'd take with me is gambeson, kettle hat, crossbow and sword and buckler. Alternatively, if no crossbows are allowed, bow and shield with sword as backup. Well, not really, what I'd really take is desertion. Coming to think of it, desertion will also be a problem, especially since you can only carry a limited amount of loot.

    Yeah, there's a reason why it wasn't really done until armies got to Napoleonic sizes.
    That which does not kill you made a tactical error.

  15. - Top - End - #705
    Banned
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    The Moral Low Ground

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

    Great weapons.

    -In general, other than Anti armour weapons, why did people elect to use two-handed melee weapons that weren't polearms in pitched battles, and how common was it that a soldier would favour a Non-polearm two handed melee weapon over a polearm (Anti-armour or otherwise) (I imagine it's mostly the rich and well armoured who would consider giving up that sweet reach, but still...)

    (I knew about the double pay thing, but there's really a lot of answers to why they could've gotten double pay... )

    Was the greatsword a good general purpose weapon during war? The -poleaxe if heavily armoured/spear if lightly armoured- argument doesn't really hold much to the realities of battlefields (IE nobody's plans for fair fights) Was it's defensive use/crowd busting powers more due to it's deadliness in such situations or rather the intimidation/move away from with sharp swingy thing...

    The forms video was helpful but doesn't entirely satisfy my need to know about the subject (And I'm very much on the fence with those full body spins... I almost get it, but Yeesh) It's helpful but i've got a massive 'Tell me more' button I'm smashing in my head. I need more context; Setting, opponents, allies... This video shows me that maybe the weapon's pretty good in a disordered fight.



    RE Mountain warfare;
    Let's say
    -early 1500's medieval technology, but guns are rare and quite behind in this part of the world.
    -A Culture was driven into a mountain range by surrounding nations. The mountain group are disliked for their ethnicity and faith. Mountain group has been in this mountain range for a thousand years. Sometimes they push into the lowlands, sometimes the lowlanders push into the mountains
    -Mountain group are excellent craftsmen and warriors are celebrated in their culture.
    -Though obviously mountain fortresses are absurdly good, they can't always rely on them; Their food needs to be collected.


    Ranged weapons were an obvious choice (Not sure of which ranged weapon) and formations would be dissuaded... but I don't think an entire army of lightly armoured sharpshooters sounds viable. Do the rich fight the same way as the poor? Is armour really avoided so much or do they just lessen it to 3/4 stuff or such, or is there a particular style of armour that'd be good for this situation?

  16. - Top - End - #706
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Great weapons.

    RE Mountain warfare;
    Let's say
    -early 1500's medieval technology, but guns are rare and quite behind in this part of the world.
    -A Culture was driven into a mountain range by surrounding nations. The mountain group are disliked for their ethnicity and faith. Mountain group has been in this mountain range for a thousand years. Sometimes they push into the lowlands, sometimes the lowlanders push into the mountains
    -Mountain group are excellent craftsmen and warriors are celebrated in their culture.
    -Though obviously mountain fortresses are absurdly good, they can't always rely on them; Their food needs to be collected.


    Ranged weapons were an obvious choice (Not sure of which ranged weapon) and formations would be dissuaded... but I don't think an entire army of lightly armoured sharpshooters sounds viable. Do the rich fight the same way as the poor? Is armour really avoided so much or do they just lessen it to 3/4 stuff or such, or is there a particular style of armour that'd be good for this situation?
    Mountain warfare is best generalized as one group sitting on their mountain and the other group sitting on their mountain and no one attacking because of the risks.

    Raiding was much more common than full scale attacks. The Raiders would seek an element of surprise, darkness, traversing terrain that the other side considers impassable, attacking isolated outposts, that kind of thing. Large scale attacks usually involved moving troops to areas where an attack was unexpected. Head in assaults against prepared mountain positions have a poor success rate.
    Counter intuitively mountain warfare is often determined not by control of the heights, but control of the valleys. That’s because to get supplies to your troops they have to come up from the valley. For example in WW2 the Germans in Italy were almost impossible to dislodge from mountains, but when the 5th and 8th Armies were able to turn a flank and threaten the supply lines the Germans would retreat to the next mountain.

    For pre-industrial cultures many mountain cultures had a history of slings rather than bows. Bows require wood, and once you start getting above 2,000 meters or so wood gets scarce. Stones are abundant however.

  17. - Top - End - #707
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Great weapons.

    -In general, other than Anti armour weapons, why did people elect to use two-handed melee weapons that weren't polearms in pitched battles, and how common was it that a soldier would favour a Non-polearm two handed melee weapon over a polearm (Anti-armour or otherwise) (I imagine it's mostly the rich and well armoured who would consider giving up that sweet reach, but still...)

    (I knew about the double pay thing, but there's really a lot of answers to why they could've gotten double pay... )

    Was the greatsword a good general purpose weapon during war? The -poleaxe if heavily armoured/spear if lightly armoured- argument doesn't really hold much to the realities of battlefields (IE nobody's plans for fair fights) Was it's defensive use/crowd busting powers more due to it's deadliness in such situations or rather the intimidation/move away from with sharp swingy thing...
    The most prolific use IMO of great swords is in the Landsknecht era. That is the transitional period between medieval and reneissance where the former had more armour and more leevay in choice of pole weapon. The further into the reneaissance we get the more armour is discarded and the more uniform weaponry gets. A great sword isn't going to do much against a fully armoured knight. However it will be able to do something against a pikeblock where the majority have already discarded a lot of the armour. Especially when the great sword armed person is going to be fully armoured too and thus almost impervious to the pike block's main weapon.

    The greatsword is a "niche" weapon, just as the halberd turned into. A weapon of guards or similar where few contend with the many. You could say greatswords have diminishing returns on investment, the more you have the less benefit the increased numbers have because you lose other capabilities.

  18. - Top - End - #708
    Pixie in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Your mom's bed.
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Randuir View Post
    Something I've seen pop up in fantasy literature now and again is the concept of 'sword-and-bows', a type of infantry that would be trained in both a melee weapon and a ranged weapon. I know the Roman legionaries used javelins as ranged weapons, but I'm wondering if there was any established military doctrine that used troops equally proficient at a main ranged weapon (like a bow or crossbow) and a melee weapon.
    Well, this question has long been answered, but it seems a lot of people have overlooked WW1, and it's host of both improvised and carefully constructed melee weapons, to accompany slow, unwieldy rifles in tight trench warfare.
    -His Foolishness

  19. - Top - End - #709
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    ElfPirate

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sabernoir View Post
    Well, this question has long been answered, but it seems a lot of people have overlooked WW1, and it's host of both improvised and carefully constructed melee weapons, to accompany slow, unwieldy rifles in tight trench warfare.
    In what way overlooked? Since we were talking about fantasy, Romans and swords and bows I think most people considered only earlier eras of military history.


    Bringing more than one weapon to battle is one thing. But even WW1 didn't dual-train soldiers to be proficient marksmen and duellists with trenchknives. I'd say it's not until WW2 and the commando concept, which I assumed borrowed a great deal from the ideas of infiltrate, hit hard tactics eg WW1 Stormtroops used, that we get troops that are very purposefully trained broadly and expected to be proficient in several weapons. In fact I think it's not too far off to say the melee is clearly secondary to that training too still to this day? When, ever, have special forces only been given a long knife and told to charge an enemy rifle position?

    Furthermore the use of un/official closecombat weapons in WW1 in no way constitutes an established doctrine drilled into trops. Some kind of ranged weapon was still the primary expected weapon, where the need for closecombat weapons came strictly secondary. They are weapons of opportunity and last resort of sorts.

    No army in WW1 trained soldiers to be melee fighters AND ranged speacilists. They trained soldiers to shoot straight and not accidentally stab themselves with a trenchknife, and sometimes gave them weapons for the few temporary occasions where they could not fill their primary role as ranged soldiers.

  20. - Top - End - #710
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by snowblizz View Post
    In what way overlooked? Since we were talking about fantasy, Romans and swords and bows I think most people considered only earlier eras of military history.


    Bringing more than one weapon to battle is one thing. But even WW1 didn't dual-train soldiers to be proficient marksmen and duellists with trenchknives. I'd say it's not until WW2 and the commando concept, which I assumed borrowed a great deal from the ideas of infiltrate, hit hard tactics eg WW1 Stormtroops used, that we get troops that are very purposefully trained broadly and expected to be proficient in several weapons. In fact I think it's not too far off to say the melee is clearly secondary to that training too still to this day? When, ever, have special forces only been given a long knife and told to charge an enemy rifle position?

    Furthermore the use of un/official closecombat weapons in WW1 in no way constitutes an established doctrine drilled into trops. Some kind of ranged weapon was still the primary expected weapon, where the need for closecombat weapons came strictly secondary. They are weapons of opportunity and last resort of sorts.

    No army in WW1 trained soldiers to be melee fighters AND ranged speacilists. They trained soldiers to shoot straight and not accidentally stab themselves with a trenchknife, and sometimes gave them weapons for the few temporary occasions where they could not fill their primary role as ranged soldiers.
    A lot of the British commando (and spy) training regimen came via the experience of William Fairbairn, who besides being a Royal Marine had also been a policeman in interwar Shanghai. He even developed a system called Defendu.

    During WW2 he trained American, Canadian and Dutch special forces, as well as British.
    Last edited by Kiero; 2019-02-26 at 05:40 AM.
    Wushu Open Reloaded
    Actual Play: The Shadow of the Sun (Acrozatarim's WFRP campaign) as Pawel Hals and Mass: the Effecting - Transcendence as Russell Ortiz.
    Now running: Tyche's Favourites, a historical ACKS campaign set around Massalia 300BC.
    In Sanity We Trust Productions - our podcasting site where you can hear our dulcet tones, updated almost every week.

  21. - Top - End - #711
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2013

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

    I think some unarmed combat and the knife or other backup weapon is taught to most modern soldiers? But even for special forces, some kind of rifle is usually the primary infantry weapon. IIRC soldiers going into close combat fighting in WWII, clearing houses or trench-fighting, liked to take sub-machine guns and grenades and then entrenching tools/bayonets/knives were the backup weapons.
    Re: 100 Things to Beware of that Every DM Should Know

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    93. No matter what the character sheet say, there are only 3 PC alignments: Lawful Snotty, Neutral Greedy, and Chaotic Backstabbing.

  22. - Top - End - #712
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    gkathellar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Beyond the Ninth Wave
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Beer View Post
    I think some unarmed combat and the knife or other backup weapon is taught to most modern soldiers? But even for special forces, some kind of rifle is usually the primary infantry weapon. IIRC soldiers going into close combat fighting in WWII, clearing houses or trench-fighting, liked to take sub-machine guns and grenades and then entrenching tools/bayonets/knives were the backup weapons.
    Pretty much. CQC is taught, sometimes even at a very high level (anecdotally, an acquaintance of mine who joined with an existing martial arts background told me his drill instructor’s jujutsu was perfect), but firearms ability is sensibly considered the more important skill for the infantryman whose job is to shoot things.

    It’s hard to generalize about the ranged-and-melee question, because of diverse times and places, and also because you have to differentiate between the weapons people knew, the weapons armies expected them to know, and the weapons armies expected them to know well. Soldiers were taught bayonet in the WW1 era, for instance, but it was not given the same degree of emphasis as just shooting the other guy. Especially before the modern era, armies often relied on people having pre-existing weapons skills that they could rely on or maybe build off of - very nearly every Mongol knew how to ride and shoot, which the Mongol conquerors knew they could rely on when deciding how to train and order their ranks. And of course, serious professional knights or mercenaries often had training in a wide variety of weapons simply as a function of their lengthy careers.

    Very broadly, you can probably say that armies have tended to emphasize training soldiers in a single role.
    Last edited by gkathellar; 2019-02-27 at 07:19 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #713
    Banned
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    The Moral Low Ground

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

    Thoughts for a soldier's body armour: Modern setting with monsters in, so guns and giant claws.

    Soldiers to be equiped are often supernaturaly strong, toxins and radiation aren't a concern for the troops, and we've got few soldiers backed by some very deep pockets. (Whilst some of these pockets care about cost effectiveness, a good deal are military-industrial-complex caricatures that want to push the extreme solutions)
    For a few soldiers (but not all) the kinetic shock of the bullet being stopped isn't a problem, so perhaps titanium is a good idea? If you double up on titanium, does it become a good idea for more regular troops? I understand it isn't very ductile, that seems like a big shortcoming, though it is longer lasting than ceramics


    This time around I've been thinking or depleted uranium and aluminium. They're used in vehicle armour, but not personal armour for obvious reasons. Extremely thick layers of aluminium might be a decent idea for some larger characters where that'd be less ergonomically bad.
    Of course, I'm not entirely sure what kind of steel they use for modern body armour. I looked a bit, I'm guessing it's all secret or proprietary or something.

    I imagine ceramics would be awful against melee weaponry.

    Perhaps some ideas for composites?

  24. - Top - End - #714
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Storm Bringer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    kendal, england
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    Thoughts for a soldier's body armour: Modern setting with monsters in, so guns and giant claws.

    Soldiers to be equiped are often supernaturaly strong, toxins and radiation aren't a concern for the troops, and we've got few soldiers backed by some very deep pockets. (Whilst some of these pockets care about cost effectiveness, a good deal are military-industrial-complex caricatures that want to push the extreme solutions)
    For a few soldiers (but not all) the kinetic shock of the bullet being stopped isn't a problem, so perhaps titanium is a good idea? If you double up on titanium, does it become a good idea for more regular troops? I understand it isn't very ductile, that seems like a big shortcoming, though it is longer lasting than ceramics


    This time around I've been thinking or depleted uranium and aluminium. They're used in vehicle armour, but not personal armour for obvious reasons. Extremely thick layers of aluminium might be a decent idea for some larger characters where that'd be less ergonomically bad.
    Of course, I'm not entirely sure what kind of steel they use for modern body armour. I looked a bit, I'm guessing it's all secret or proprietary or something.

    I imagine ceramics would be awful against melee weaponry.

    Perhaps some ideas for composites?
    Conventional ceramic body armour over a chainmail base layer. modern ceramics don't have the same issues with shattering that the older ones did, and can take multiple strikes in a small area without compromise (tests Ive seen show several full power rifle shots into an area smaller than my hand, with the plate still in one piece at the end). Chainmail is flexible, can cover the gaps that cant be covered with hard plate, and relatively lightweight. It is being used in modern anti-stab vests, which basically just put the chainmail in a modern style cover.

    If your dealing with creatures that can slash though properly made chainmail, then just wear regular ballistic vest without any extras and shoot better, because nothing you can wear to cover holes is going to stand up to these creatures, so save the weight for more ammo or a Bigger Gun.


    If the monsters can strike with enough force to punch though modern body armour, then they have claws that have strike with as much energy as a .50 cal BMG round, and you shouldn't be sending in foot troops.

    Take off, and nuke the site form orbit.


    Its the only way to be sure.
    Last edited by Storm Bringer; 2019-03-05 at 11:08 AM.
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
    But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

    "Tommy", Rudyard Kipling

  25. - Top - End - #715
    Banned
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    The Moral Low Ground

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

    They can slash through chainmail, but that's really a testament to needing things better than steel, or needing thick super-modern steel.

    The soldiers are more resiliant than normal humans, so damage reduction from armour benefits their already tough condition. As many of them are stronger (like... x4 to x10 strength of average joe), weight is less of an issue.

    Already thought of bomb and vehicles. They're out of the equation for now. I'm just asking about armour for monsterous half-human infantry to fight regular infantry and monsters. I use that stuff, but it's the infantry I'm concerned with now.

  26. - Top - End - #716
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Gender
    Male

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

    You aren't going to get better impact protection on a weight/bulk basis than modern ceramics. The only reason to use anything else is if your troops have an ability carry one of the two properties that is vastly skewed in one direction or the other - much more weight than bulk, or vice-versa. In the case of somebody having much more ability to carry weight (do to being extremely strong for their size), the best option is armor-grade steel (which is the material used for higher-grade strike plates designed to stop full-rifle rounds), or possibly modern composite tank armor. If you can carry a lot more bulk than weight (really big for your strength), you're probably best off just adding more ceramics.

  27. - Top - End - #717
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Storm Bringer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    kendal, england
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    They can slash through chainmail, but that's really a testament to needing things better than steel, or needing thick super-modern steel.

    The soldiers are more resiliant than normal humans, so damage reduction from armour benefits their already tough condition. As many of them are stronger (like... x4 to x10 strength of average joe), weight is less of an issue.

    Already thought of bomb and vehicles. They're out of the equation for now. I'm just asking about armour for monsterous half-human infantry to fight regular infantry and monsters. I use that stuff, but it's the infantry I'm concerned with now.
    well, theirs two options: make the chainmail rings out of thicker material, until they can't claw though it, then use that in a chain shirt and coif, or give up on anti-claw protection and focus on ballistic armour (the threat you can protect against) and use that extra strength for carrying a Bigger Gun with more knock down power (say, a .50 cal battle rifle), so you can kill the monster before it can claw you.

    My point about nuking form orbit is that a modern military, assuming it knows what its up against (and if we are designing specialist equipment to deal with a threat, it must know about the threat in question), would respond to monsters that can claw though steel armour by not getting close enough to be clawed. In open terrain, they'd just stay mobile and rain down fire support until the monsters are all dead. In close terrain (say, a city), their go-to solution would be to level buildngs rather than try and clear them of monsters, then break out the flamethrowers and grenades for clearing the rubble. the only time they'd storm a place with monsters in it because they aren't allowed to just flatten it with a air strike, for whatever reason.

    You might say vehicles are out of the equation, but the most likely response to inhumanly powerful monsters is to use vehicles to level the playing field, metaphorically and literally.

    in terms of a "better than steel" metal..... we don't really have one. medieval steel armour, is, pound for pound, better at protecting against melee attacks than modern steel armour. Quite simply, we don't know how to make armour like that anymore, and a lot of trade secrets died in the early modern period as armour went form bespoke suits hand crafted by experts to lower quality, standardised, mass produced items.

    Armour plates are not a solid piece of homogenous steel, but a combo of very hard "face" steel with softer steel behind it (to be clear, these are different parts of the same physical plate, not two separate pieces of metal stuck together). the Face metal is very hard, but brittle, because it is hard. The main body of the plate is not as hard, but instead more ductile, "bendy", which lets it absorb the shock of impact better and not break. Think uncooked spaghetti vs cooked spaghetti. Push your finger against uncooked and it will resist you, but if pushed to far it will just
    snap. cooked can be bent in circles without breaking, but you can push your finger though it easily.

    by combing the two types of steel, you get a armour that is both hard but not brittle. The steel is already a Alloy including half a dozen other metals in various amounts (such as carbon, chromium, Tungsten and Cobalt, to name a few). as far as I know, we really haven't discovered a metal or alloy that is all-round better than steel, just ones that are better in some specific aspects (for example, lighter, or less bulky, or less prone to corrosion, etc).
    Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Tommy, 'ow's yer soul? "
    But it's " Thin red line of 'eroes " when the drums begin to roll
    The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
    O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes, " when the drums begin to roll.

    "Tommy", Rudyard Kipling

  28. - Top - End - #718
    Banned
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    The Moral Low Ground

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

    I'm throwing out vehicles not because they're not to be used, they are used, but often they can't be.
    Yes, Of course, I'm going with big guns. Months ago I was asking about them (and lasers). There are giant 20mm battle rifles, 14.5mm guns, 50 cals and all the excess I could get away with given the context of the setting.

    Anyhow. I'm gathering that ceramics are likely better than thick aluminium alloys.

    I'm looking at Uranium like a longing puppy looking for adoption. It's so thematically appropriate that I might just throw it in anyway (it'd be a good component for the way the setting does magic) but I work under the the principles that if it isn't magic, it's real and follows real rules. It is used sparingly in modern composite US tank Armour, But I'm having a hard time working out how hard it is and how good it'd be compared to other things (Steel, the safe bet). It's dense and ductile and that's good, but I'm not making sense of hardness scales.

  29. - Top - End - #719
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

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

    Historically when armor stopped being an effective counter to the attack armies dropped the armor. Most famously this happened with the introduction of gunpowder weapons.

    Instead of putting money and resources into things that are heavy, irritating to wear and restrict mobility for limited protection you put those money and resources into more useful things.

    Quite simply if the enemy critters are that powerful in melee your soldiers will be trained and equipped to avoid melee. Bigger guns, better sensors, luring the enemy into claymore mine trap tactics, quick and easy to set up barriers, high mobility jet packs, are the type of things I’d spend my development money on rather than improved melee armor.

  30. - Top - End - #720
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

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

    Quote Originally Posted by The Jack View Post
    I'm throwing out vehicles not because they're not to be used, they are used, but often they can't be.
    Yes, Of course, I'm going with big guns. Months ago I was asking about them (and lasers). There are giant 20mm battle rifles, 14.5mm guns, 50 cals and all the excess I could get away with given the context of the setting.

    Anyhow. I'm gathering that ceramics are likely better than thick aluminium alloys.

    I'm looking at Uranium like a longing puppy looking for adoption. It's so thematically appropriate that I might just throw it in anyway (it'd be a good component for the way the setting does magic) but I work under the the principles that if it isn't magic, it's real and follows real rules. It is used sparingly in modern composite US tank Armour, But I'm having a hard time working out how hard it is and how good it'd be compared to other things (Steel, the safe bet). It's dense and ductile and that's good, but I'm not making sense of hardness scales.
    Rockwell hardness scales. Most blades are in the region of 50 hardness (flexible blade) to 65 (stiff blade). Above 65 Rockwell blades start getting too brittle. Armor starts at about 100 Rockwell, modern hardened steel armor gets up to about 220 iirc.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •