Got a Real-World Weapon, Armour or Tactics Question? Mk. XXVIII

[Martin Greywolf]

So I received as a gift something marketed as a "Celtic Pocket Knife", but I haven't been able to find online anything similar in historic sources, and I'm wondering if any similar knives were ever made. The blade is single edged and short, and the "grip" isn't a full grip, but a loop formed of a tang extending from the back edge and just large enough to fit your finger. You put your index finger through the loop, place your thumb against the back of the blade, and let the knob at the end of the tang press against your middle finger. I've seen vaguely similar tang/grip on Viking knives, but instead of forming a loop, they doubled back to form a U-shaped hilt. I can't find any pictures to link to that aren't from the manufacturer and I don't want to come across as advertising something, but if you want to google it, the company name is Toferner.

DrewID

I have good news for you, that knife is, indeed a real thing. There is no one find that is an exact dead ringer for it, there almost never is with handforged goods, but the style is found in la tenne, gallic and halstatt sites, mostly in northern France, southern Germany area for this specific type - but that may well be down to what research is and is not widely published. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a ton of Russian finds that just aren't available to public.

Spoiler: Supposedly replicas of finds, has no proper source

Show

Spoiler: Germany, dated to circa 300 BC

Show

Spoiler: Unknown provenance, from style of hilt likely Bulgarian celts, very similar to Arkovna finds

Show

[DrewID]

I have good news for you, that knife is, indeed a real thing. There is no one find that is an exact dead ringer for it, there almost never is with handforged goods, but the style is found in la tenne, gallic and halstatt sites, mostly in northern France, southern Germany area for this specific type - but that may well be down to what research is and is not widely published. Wouldn't be surprised if there was a ton of Russian finds that just aren't available to public.

Spoiler: Supposedly replicas of finds, has no proper source

Show

Spoiler: Germany, dated to circa 300 BC

Show

Spoiler: Unknown provenance, from style of hilt likely Bulgarian celts, very similar to Arkovna finds

Show

Pretty close, thank you.

DrewID

[Vinyadan]

Spoiler

Show

The lowest of these, with the crescent shape, is an arbelos. It's a knife that was used to cut leather, e.g. by cobblers. It's also where the name of the geometrical shape comes from.

[Kraynic]

The lowest of these, with the crescent shape, is an arbelos. It's a knife that was used to cut leather, e.g. by cobblers.

And if you wanted one today, you might easier find it labeled as a "head knife".

[TripleD]

What kind of armor would have been worn by warriors on a pre-gunpowder ship? I realize that’s a very vague question, but I’ve received a bunch of conflicting information on armor and swimming ability, and was wondering if there are any examples of people eschewing, or continuing to wear, full body armor in ship-to-ship combat.

[Pauly]

What kind of armor would have been worn by warriors on a pre-gunpowder ship? I realize that’s a very vague question, but I’ve received a bunch of conflicting information on armor and swimming ability, and was wondering if there are any examples of people eschewing, or continuing to wear, full body armor in ship-to-ship combat.

It depends on era and ship design.

In eras where boarding actions are common, expected and ships are designed for it armor could be common. For e ample Roman legionnaires serving as marines wore their full armor. It important to note that the Romans used a corvus, a boarding plank designed to drop and impale itself onto the deck of an enemy ship.

In the age of sail where boarding was much more difficult because ships sides were bowed inwards armor was not used AFAIK.

It is not a subject I have done much reading in, but my expectation is that ships designed for coastal or work on enclosed seas, would be better suited to armored combat than vessels designed to work on the open ocean.

[Kiero]

What kind of armor would have been worn by warriors on a pre-gunpowder ship? I realize that’s a very vague question, but I’ve received a bunch of conflicting information on armor and swimming ability, and was wondering if there are any examples of people eschewing, or continuing to wear, full body armor in ship-to-ship combat.

In antiquity, for a while the standard for marines was either hoplite (heavy armour, big shield, long spear) or archer (little or no armour and composite bow). Into the Hellenistic era, the archetype shifted as marines were often composed of coastal peoples from southern Anatolia. That meant textile tube and yoke armour at the heaviest for the body with small shields, slings/bows/javelins and swords. In the Roman era, marines were often legionaries, armed the same as their land-based equivalents.

Either way the calculation was the same: if you go overboard, chances are you will drown. The trade off was simple - armour increases your likelihood of surviving boarding actions, even if it means you'll probably die if you go into the drink. A shield is an easier calculation, since you can just let go of it.

[Storm Bringer]

its worth pointing out that a significant majority of people in those days couldn't swim, so going in the drink was a death sentence in short order anyway. Obviously, that's a breathtakingly broad statement that isn't true for all times and places, but its true enough to be a factor in this question. Also, I know that during the Napoleonic wars (later than your asking about, but maybe relevant) their was a feeling in some sailor circles that all that learning to swim would do if you went overboard is trade a quick death by drowning to a slow death by exhaustion, then drowning, so why bother?.

that, and swimming, even in quite thin clothes is actually really, really tiring and difficult, because the clothes add a significant amount of drag to every single movement you make.

I've done it as part of my army basic training, and even swimming a few lengths in fairly form-fitting clothes (mechanics coveralls, in this case) was easily more tiring than trying to sprint over a similar length. it was like trying to sprint while holding my breath. I was damm nearly unable to climb out of the pool after only about 200M of own-pace swimming, and I sounded like I'd just run a marathon.

and that was in nice, warm pool water. Fall into the North Sea during the winter, and your life expectancy is going to be measured in minutes.

but, basically, as the others have said, soldiers on ships wore armour for boarding actions for the entirety of the pre-gunpowder period, and well into the gunpowder era (it was very common on the men who fought the Spanish Armada campaign, in the 1580s, for example). it basically stopped being used about the same time that armour stopped being standard issue on land (i'd ballpark it somewhere around the back end of the 17th century, ie the 1680s or so).

[snowblizz]

but, basically, as the others have said, soldiers on ships wore armour for boarding actions for the entirety of the pre-gunpowder period, and well into the gunpowder era (it was very common on the men who fought the Spanish Armada campaign, in the 1580s, for example). it basically stopped being used about the same time that armour stopped being standard issue on land (i'd ballpark it somewhere around the back end of the 17th century, ie the 1680s or so).

I would add that armour stopped being used in conjunction with boarding no longer being the dominant way you fought sea battles. Which is about the time you note. It's around this time shipbuilding has progressed enough that you can start to build ships as workable gun platforms for masses of heavy guns. It's quite logical, when you expect to be shooting up the enemy armour is not very useful anymore. Especially since gunpowder is pushing away armour on land too. The amount of marines compared to sailors changes too over time.

[Beleriphon]

I would add that armour stopped being used in conjunction with boarding no longer being the dominant way you fought sea battles. Which is about the time you note. It's around this time shipbuilding has progressed enough that you can start to build ships as workable gun platforms for masses of heavy guns. It's quite logical, when you expect to be shooting up the enemy armour is not very useful anymore. Especially since gunpowder is pushing away armour on land too. The amount of marines compared to sailors changes too over time.

Yep, got to agree on the armour bit with cannon becoming common. When you don't have to worry so much about stabbing another dude, but instead have to worry about 20 pound cannon balls flying at you at around 800 ft/second armour becomes less relevant.

[TripleD]

Huge thank you to everyone who answered! This question has bugged me for a long time and it’s nice to have some context.

[comicshorse]

Idle curiosity but I remember reading once in a thriller that if you rubbed a bullet with wire wool (or similar) you could create enough superficial scratches on it to make it impossible (or at least harder) to identify the rifling marks left by the gun. True or not ?

[Brother Oni]

Idle curiosity but I remember reading once in a thriller that if you rubbed a bullet with wire wool (or similar) you could create enough superficial scratches on it to make it impossible (or at least harder) to identify the rifling marks left by the gun. True or not ?

Depends exactly on what the forensics examiner is looking for and the depth of the wire wool scoring.

If the examiner is just checking the rifiling grooves, then the wire wool scoring would have to be fairly deep - for a 9mm pistol round, the rifiling marks are generally around 1.4mm wide by 3mm deep, so any scoring to distort those would have to be at least that deep. Such deep marks can potentially affect the bullet aerodynamics as the ability of the rifiling grooves to bite into the bullet as it travels down the barrel is affected.

There's also no way of altering the number, angle or direction (right or left) of rifiling marks, aside from using a different barrel.

Checking for other microscopic markings could be distorted by fairly superficial marking though, depending on what they are. If the shooter fails to police their brass afterwards, then the discarded casings could also be a clue - for example Glocks have a rectangular firing pin hole on their breech face, which leaves a distinctive shear mark on the cartridge case primer. Obviously attempting to score a live cartridge case primer with wire wool is highly unrecommended.

This website has a fair bit of information that might be of interest: link.

[Pauly]

Idle curiosity but I remember reading once in a thriller that if you rubbed a bullet with wire wool (or similar) you could create enough superficial scratches on it to make it impossible (or at least harder) to identify the rifling marks left by the gun. True or not ?

Most of the rifling checks are done on the base of the bullet. That’s wehere the forces pushing the soft lead into the hardened steel barrel are greatest. That’s also the part of the bullet that the brass case is crimped onto, which you wouldn’t be able to scratch with wire wool, unless you are hand-loading

If you do take off enough metal that the rifling doesn’t show on the spent bullet, well that means you’ve turned your modern gun into a smoothbore. Not the brightest idea in my book.

All in all there are other more effective ways to try to confuse forensics. For example it is sometimes possible to switch barrels between different makers. Which may be baffling for the forensics if the brass says Glock but the rifling says FN, but puts you totally in the frame if you are found with that weapon in your possession.

[Storm Bringer]

I would add that armour stopped being used in conjunction with boarding no longer being the dominant way you fought sea battles. Which is about the time you note. It's around this time shipbuilding has progressed enough that you can start to build ships as workable gun platforms for masses of heavy guns. It's quite logical, when you expect to be shooting up the enemy armour is not very useful anymore. Especially since gunpowder is pushing away armour on land too. The amount of marines compared to sailors changes too over time.

well, its not so much as cannon being common (their were cannon present at the battle of Crécy in 1346, for pete's sake!), as cannon and gunpowder tech in general reaching the point where it became practical to shift to using firepower as the primary armament of the line infantry, as opposed to the skirmisher/light troops weapon it was before. Armies were able to arm more and more of their troops with muskets without loosing the ability to hold off determined melee attackers, and once the bayonet was perfected in the early 1700s then the musket became pretty much the only weapon infantry carried.

on the naval side, the big change was the combination of two things:

1)a shift form the big, slow "mobile fortress" type ships that charactised the Spanish Armada, with high sides and a few heavy cannon, to a more nimble, cannon focused style of warship like used by the English fighting the Armada. this was made possible by:

2) improvements in cannon technology and a effort to properly integrate them into the ship design as opposed to just strapping a few guns borrowed form the army onto the deck and calling it a day. these new cannon were faster firing, given trained, dedicated naval gun crews (as opposed to army gunners borrowed alongside the guns), mounted in carriages intended for naval use, and of standardised, uniform calibre.

some of these things seem like common sense, but the Spanish armada warships often had a motely collection of different calibre guns, some of them still on field carriages, with army crews who weren't really trained or equipped for naval work, and they tended to just fire a salvo while closing to board and then worry about reloading after the boarding action was over.

In short, it be became possible for a ship to stand off and sink a enemy, as opposed to having to board and close.


as these improvements became commonplace, and cannons, and cannon based tactics (ie line astern, broadside fire style tactics of Nelson) became the default, the need for armour disappeared as you weren't facing threats that needed it anymore, so crews stopped wearing it.

[Yora]

Random thought that just came to me and I want to have checked:

Did some early firearms have funnel shaped muzzles to aid with loading? And if so, why did it went away? It probably helps with loading, but must have had some disadvantage if it was discontinued.

[Willie the Duck]

Random thought that just came to me and I want to have checked:

Did some early firearms have funnel shaped muzzles to aid with loading? And if so, why did it went away? It probably helps with loading, but must have had some disadvantage if it was discontinued.

A quick search on blunderbuss images seems to indicate that the flared-end ones I was thinking of came from the time period where they would have been decorative curios, so I don't know of any historical examples. Logically, you tend not to want to add weight to the end of your barrel (making a longarm harder to aim) unless it serves a vital purpose (like, being part of the functional barrel). I agree that loading a weapon with powder is something of a challenge. However, given the bore size of most muzzle-loading weapons, and that powder horns (so, the funnel built into the powder-source) became something of a norm, I'm guessing that the benefit gained by a funnel-esque muzzle wouldn't have been so good an idea that it would offset the inherent negative traits.

This is all unsourced speculation, so take it with all the requisite grains of salt.

[Gnoman]

Blunderbusses were loaded with shot rather than ball. The muzzle flare was to make it easier to pour shot (which is not as fine and easy flowing as powder, but is much more of a hassle than one or two balls) into the muzzle. Most guns did not have a flare because they were used with ball, and that's easy enough to drop down. You see the same thing on some musketoons (a smaller musket that is more useable on horseback), as it was not uncommon to load musketoons with shot as well.


I've seen claims that the flare made the shot spread more, but this is dubious.

[Willie the Duck]

I've seen claims that the flare made the shot spread more, but this is dubious.

Well, it would do so by nature of being, effectively, a shorter barrel (the flared part not really acting 'as a barrel' in this regard).

[Gnoman]

Well, it would do so by nature of being, effectively, a shorter barrel (the flared part not really acting 'as a barrel' in this regard).

Shorter barrels don't have much effect on shotgun spread. In modern shotguns, the spread is controlled by a device called the "choke", which compresses the muzzle at the very end to tighten the pattern. No choke is the widest such pattern. Other than that, the only difference between a short-barreled shotgun and a long barreled one is the sight radius - the distance between the rear sight and the front one. A gun with a larger sight radius has to be aligned more precisely to bring the two together, and is thus easier to shoot accurately.

[Willie the Duck]

Shorter barrels don't have much effect on shotgun spread. In modern shotguns, the spread is controlled by a device called the "choke", which compresses the muzzle at the very end to tighten the pattern. No choke is the widest such pattern. Other than that, the only difference between a short-barreled shotgun and a long barreled one is the sight radius - the distance between the rear sight and the front one. A gun with a larger sight radius has to be aligned more precisely to bring the two together, and is thus easier to shoot accurately.

Learn something new every day. So sawed-off shotguns are wildly inaccurate because the choke is gone, not some innate quality of removing 1/2 the barrel length?

[Gnoman]

Learn something new every day. So sawed-off shotguns are wildly inaccurate because the choke is gone, not some innate quality of removing 1/2 the barrel length?

You do get some additional spread with enough of the barrel gone (due mostly to the fact that you start losing velocity if you drop the barrel to a few inches or less), but not much - that part is just the missing choke. Other than that, sawed-off shotguns are not as inaccurate or wide-spreading as their reputation suggests. The main reason to shorten a shotgun is to make it concealable, although there is some police or military utility for maneuverability in close quarters. The reputation of sawed-off shotguns is mostly because any shotgun is incredibly nasty at point-blank range, which is the range most sawed-offs are used at.

[Willie the Duck]

The reputation of sawed-off shotguns is mostly because any shotgun is incredibly nasty at point-blank range, which is the range most sawed-offs are used at.

Given that you've almost undoubtedly removed the sights, one would hope so. However, I had always thought that the barrel, simply by existing, did something to increase accuracy along with provide velocity. Is that less so for shot-weapons, or am I imagining an entire value of rifles/long-barrel weapons in general that never really existed?

[Kraynic]

One thing about the flared bore is that it is a lot easier to load it with rocks, rocksalt and nails, or whatever once you run out of lead shot.

[Storm Bringer]

Given that you've almost undoubtedly removed the sights, one would hope so. However, I had always thought that the barrel, simply by existing, did something to increase accuracy along with provide velocity. Is that less so for shot-weapons, or am I imagining an entire value of rifles/long-barrel weapons in general that never really existed?

yes, it does, but the effect isn't massive, and is often overshadowed by other factors. quite simply, most people don't shoot well enough for the extra accuracy to matter.

its only when you start getting to professional target shooters or military snipers that the shooter is able to place shots consistently enough that barrel length really starts coming into play. Farmer Joe down the shootin' range or private tommy atkins normally isn't shooting at a level where the addition or subtraction of 6 inches of barrel affects his shooting.

honestly, removing the sights has much more effect. Also, they very commonly take the stock off as well, to cut it down even further, so they are carrying a shotgun with heavy kick, no way to brace and no proper sights. even with a good spread of shot, your still not hitting much at much more than 20 yards, if that.

Did some early firearms have funnel shaped muzzles to aid with loading? And if so, why did it went away? It probably helps with loading, but must have had some disadvantage if it was discontinued.

as others have said, yes, they did, namely the blunderbuss type early shotgun. they often were intended for use by the guards on coaches (hence why the passenger by the driver is "riding shotgun"), so the bell mouth was to aid loading the thing while sat on a large, bouncy coach travelling at speed while under attack form highwaymen.

I cant say for certain when they fell out of use, but they seem to have been used up until the early 19th century in some capacity (the Lewis and Clarke Expedition over America carried a fair few of them). its quite possible they carried on in use until repeating weapons like revolvers and lever actions weapons replaced them.

[Beleriphon]

honestly, removing the sights has much more effect. Also, they very commonly take the stock off as well, to cut it down even further, so they are carrying a shotgun with heavy kick, no way to brace and no proper sights. even with a good spread of shot, your still not hitting much at much more than 20 yards, if that.

Given the type of person who is chopping down a shotgun, the idea of using it at more than 20 or 30 feet is probably a non-factor.

[Storm Bringer]

Given the type of person who is chopping down a shotgun, the idea of using it at more than 20 or 30 feet is probably a non-factor.

well, yhea, is most definitely for pulling out form under the trenchcoat and shoving right in the face of whoever your trying to intimidate. I must emphasise the word intimidate, as if you just want them dead thiers better weapons to use, like the shotgun you chopped up to get the swan-off.

[Gnoman]

Given that you've almost undoubtedly removed the sights, one would hope so. However, I had always thought that the barrel, simply by existing, did something to increase accuracy along with provide velocity. Is that less so for shot-weapons, or am I imagining an entire value of rifles/long-barrel weapons in general that never really existed?

The extra velocity from the longer barrel* does boost accuracy a bit, but the main boost is from sight radius. Benchrest tests (where the gun is bolted in place) show no significant accuracy differences from barrel length.







*Assuming that you're not using a barrel so long that you start losing velocity, that is. Barrel length improves velocity because you get pushed by the still-burning powder longer. If the barrel is long enough that the powder burns completely away, friction will start to slow the bullet down. This is also why pistols use a different powder than rifles do (and why reloaders never, ever charge rifle cartridges with pistol powder). Since pistols use shorter barrels, they need a much faster burning powder.

[Carl]

Actually a blunderbuss might have had a wider pattern as a result of the fact that as the barrel starts to widen there's no longer a barrel confining the shot column but there's still not enough space for the gas pressure behind the shot to fully dissipated off the the sides so the shot still has significant force, (less so than in the barrel more so than in say a full bore choke shotgun), acting on it. But thats just a theory, you'd have to actually test it, and the effect certainly wouldn't be extreme.


As far as shotgun barrel lengths go, i've read that shotguns mostly hit peak velocity in the first few inches of the barrel, thats what would make barrel length affect spread as it's the momentum from the muzzle velocity that acts as a limiting factor on rate of spread for the most part.

[Lilapop]

The extra velocity from the longer barrel does boost accuracy a bit

It does at extreme ranges, where getting further before you go transsonic (bullet starting to get kicked in the donkey by its own sound wave) is a relevant concern. However, a longer barrel made with the same processes and the same QA standards has a higher chance of being less precise, as there is more canvas to make & miss flaws on.