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

[snowblizz]

Britain/France/Russia were the Triple Entente in WWI. Germany/Austria-Hungary were the Triple Alliance.

The names originate from the Entente Cordiale between Britain and France, the Franco-Russian Alliance, and the Anglo-Russian Entente, which put the centuries old rivalry between the three countries to bed and created an informal political bloc opposed to central European powers.

Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary had a defensive alliance, making them formal allies. Italy skipped out on the war at first because they didn't consider it a defensive war, later joining the Entente powers, but the name Triple Alliance stuck.

I wouldn't call it a matter of "consideration". It literally wasn't a defensive war, Austro-Hungary and Germany struck first. Italy was thus under no obligation to join the war on the side of it's treaty allies as they quite literally had taken an action that disqualified the alliance. Romania likewise decided not to join an offensive war. They also later joined the Entente powers.

While the Entente powers did wind up referring to their group as the Allies during and after the war, I don't think a name was ever attributed to the Triple Alliance in English, so it's better for clarity to refer to the 'the Allies' as 'the Entente' imo.

The Central Powers of WW1, German Empire, Austro-Hungary, Ottoman empire and Bulgaria are in English usually named the "Central Powers", because well they were central geographically in Europe and sandwiched centrally between the members of the Entente. They are also apparently sometimes known a the Quadruple Alliance, since there were actually four of them by 1915.
I agree on the use of Entente, mostly because as soon as you say the Allies it brings up a picture of WW2 which tend sot overshadow WW1 in almost every way imaginable in the public consciousness.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Edit: Didn't see your most recent post. That's interesting. It looks like we started with our bastions at different locations. Rotated 12.5° from each other.

Yeah, I'm not quite sure how that happened, but it looks to be because I first drew an 8 sided star and then turned the points into bastions, while you started your designs by drawing an octagon and then drew bastions on the corners. So you're working from a flat side "pointing" straight up while in my attempt a bastion is pointing straight up.

[fusilier]

Since you have some experience working through this, maybe you'd like to weigh in on a thought experiment of mine. I've been trying to design a good bastion fort using only angles that are integer multiples of 45°. How would you approach such a thing?

The short answer is you can't. I mean, you can make a kind of bastioned fort that has 45 and 90 degree angles only, but the angles won't be right for the correct placement of defensive artillery.

The typical way to start such a sketch is to draw a polygon with the right number of points. For example, if you wanted a fortress with eight bastions, then you draw an octagon. The points of the octagon will be the points of the bastions, and the walls we drawn inward. Then it's a matter of old school compass and straight edge construction to get the walls.

I don't have time at the moment, but if you can find a copy of Ian V. Hogg's Fortress, I think it will walk you through the basic construction.

[Maat Mons]

Well shoot. There goes my hope of putting a realistic star fort into relatively primitive RPG mapmaking software. I might pick up that book. But I’d definitely choose CAD over compass and straightedge. That makes it much easier to define mathematical relations between certain measurements and then freely tweak the remaining measurements to see how you like the result.

[fusilier]

Well shoot. There goes my hope of putting a realistic star fort into relatively primitive RPG mapmaking software. I might pick up that book. But IÂ’d definitely choose CAD over compass and straightedge. That makes it much easier to define mathematical relations between certain measurements and then freely tweak the remaining measurements to see how you like the result.

If you extend the outer lines of the bastion, they should intersect the main wall, at the point that the flank of the adjacent bastion connects to the main wall.

I apologize -- I need to take pictures from the books that I have then find some place to upload them so I can share. It's a lot easier to understand with pictures.

The compass/straight-edge construction means you don't concern yourself with angles -- the angles result from connecting points you draw. You might need to consider some ratios of lengths of walls (how large you want the bastions), but that's about it.

Having said that, some earlier works didn't necessarily follow these rules, so what you drew is not entirely unrealistic.

[Maat Mons]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's already one of the constraints I defined in that CAD file.

[fusilier]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's already one of the constraints I defined in that CAD file.

Ok cool, I couldn't tell from the other pictures. You're close. Let me see if I can find some way to upload files, and then I'll just write out the whole process.

[fusilier]

Vauban Fortress design, from Ian V. Hogg's Fortress, pg. 54



Text (same citation)

Spoiler: Drawing board approach

Show

Let me know if that works.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Quick question about an armor piece:

Spoiler: Please direct your attention to the 1250 Knight

Show

What's the name of that square armor piece on his shoulder?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I would have called that a pauldron, but I looked it up and that's wrong. A pauldron is a later piece that covers the armpit as well as the shoulder. The pauldron developed from the spaulder, a version that only covers the top of the shoulder. So I guess what you see here could be considered an early spaulder, the most basic version, just a flat shoulder plate over the mail.

There's probably at least one even more specific term for it, it looks distinctive enough that someone would have made up a seperate word. But early spaulder is at least close.

The 1330-1450 knights seem to be using more typical examples of spaulders, with 1525 wearing pauldrons.

[Spiryt]

It was called ailette, at least in medieval French, and thus in English as result, and it's very debatable if it was even armor or more of a heraldic device.

Certainly the way it was, and where it was, mounted doesn't seem to be about protection. Clavicle certainly can be damaged if some powerful strike lands from above, but the way they were strapped, it seem they would mostly protect large deltoid muscle where there isnt' much bone exposed.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

Thank you!

[Catullus64]

It was called ailette, at least in medieval French, and thus in English as result, and it's very debatable if it was even armor or more of a heraldic device.

Certainly the way it was, and where it was, mounted doesn't seem to be about protection. Clavicle certainly can be damaged if some powerful strike lands from above, but the way they were strapped, it seem they would mostly protect large deltoid muscle where there isnt' much bone exposed.

Could you provide an attribution for the image? If there's one at the bottom, it's too small and blurry for me to read.

[Pauly]

The alleges remind me of Japanese sode (shoukder armor plates).

Sode, especially those extending away from the body, are more for protection from arrows than melee. You can think of them more akin to shields strapped to the shoulders than as traditional armor.

[Spiryt]

Could you provide an attribution for the image? If there's one at the bottom, it's too small and blurry for me to read.

I just found it on my Pinterest, and it doesn't seem like there's bigger resolution. Google image search yielded one though:

https://scontent-waw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...hQ&oe=65699E3F

The alleges remind me of Japanese sode (shoukder armor plates).

Sode, especially those extending away from the body, are more for protection from arrows than melee. You can think of them more akin to shields strapped to the shoulders than as traditional armor.

Sode are large, properly fitted to arm, and made from iron lames exactly like the rest of the armor though.


Those were seemingly mostly small bits of leather, or even wool, losely strapped to mail. If those were for additional protecton, one would probably armor something other than shoulders.

[Maat Mons]

How often would the cloth layer of brigandine need to be repaired? It seems counterintuitive to me that the most easily damage part is on the outside.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

How often would the cloth layer of brigandine need to be repaired? It seems counterintuitive to me that the most easily damage part is on the outside.

My guess to the why of the brigandine:

1) A popular way to defeat armor was trying to get between the plates. That is near impossible to do reliably and on purpose when you can't see the plates and have to stab through a layer of cloth to even start probing.
2) Iron/steel exposed to the elements is vulnerable to rust, making the garment less durable in the long run, and it easily conducts heat and cold to the wearer, making it uncomfortable on everything but a nice spring day.

Although both of these could be fixed with just a cloth garment worn over the armor itself...

As for the repairing: probably quite often. The upside is that tailoring is a skill quite a few people had, making it less expensive than "proper" armoring.

So that in fact may be the main reason for the construction in the first place. It's easier to repair this way?

[snowblizz]

My guess to the why of the brigandine:

1) A popular way to defeat armor was trying to get between the plates. That is near impossible to do reliably and on purpose when you can't see the plates and have to stab through a layer of cloth to even start probing.
2) Iron/steel exposed to the elements is vulnerable to rust, making the garment less durable in the long run, and it easily conducts heat and cold to the wearer, making it uncomfortable on everything but a nice spring day.

Although both of these could be fixed with just a cloth garment worn over the armor itself...

As for the repairing: probably quite often. The upside is that tailoring is a skill quite a few people had, making it less expensive than "proper" armoring.

So that in fact may be the main reason for the construction in the first place. It's easier to repair this way?

If you look at many brigandines we find that the rivets on the outside are very fancy, fancier than need to be for armour really and the riveting tend to be nicely patterned. Because it is meant to be displayed. A brigandine is part fashion statement part armour.

[Maat Mons]

Speaking of rivets and style, would it be any kind of problem to make the rivets from brass or bronze? It's weaker than steel, but the rivets don't hold plates to other plates, they hold plates to cloth, and I feel like the cloth is always going to be the weakest link in terms of making sure the plates stay riveted to the cloth.

[Pauly]

Speaking of rivets and style, would it be any kind of problem to make the rivets from brass or bronze? It's weaker than steel, but the rivets don't hold plates to other plates, they hold plates to cloth, and I feel like the cloth is always going to be the weakest link in terms of making sure the plates stay riveted to the cloth.

This is a bit outside my expertise, so a few grains of salt required.. using brass rivets is commonly done in metalwork for decorative purposes. However when the metal is under heavy stress having fasteners of different properties to the pieces being joined has many more pathways to failure than having fasteners of similar qualities. Another consideration is corrosion where the different properties may lead to unequal corrosion.

[Spiryt]

There are plenty of brigandines with copper alloy rivets.

Don't think difference in strength would be all that great, seems that brasses in particular have pretty solid shear strength, comparable to mild steels.

Resistance to corrosion would probably be quite desirable there.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If you look at many brigandines we find that the rivets on the outside are very fancy, fancier than need to be for armour really and the riveting tend to be nicely patterned. Because it is meant to be displayed. A brigandine is part fashion statement part armour.

Tying into this: I think it's more of an "everyday armor", in the sense that yes, you could wear it as a fashion statement, or while traveling, or when marching towards battle, still a day out but half expecting to be ambushed. It's not as protective but also not as unfomfortable as say full plate, even masterfully fitted plate. Kind of an adventurer's armor. So that's maybe where my point 2 from earlier comes in. It makes a bit more sense to have the main cloth layer on the outside if you're expecting to be hit by harsh sunshine or freezing rain more than by enemy halberds. Yes, the cloth or the rivets could break, but at least you're not freezing your ass off and you don't have to replace a fully rusted set of armor.

[Maat Mons]

Funny you would mention it being a good armor choice for adventurers. I was thinking about brigandine in the first place because a YouTube channel I follow put out a video titled "What is the BEST ARMOR for fantasy ADVENTURERS?" where two of the three dudes gave brigandine as their answers.

[Lemmy]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?

And what about a short sword, considering the same limitations?

[Pauly]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?

And what about a short sword, considering the same limitations?

Do you mean like a backsword or a basket hilted broadsword? If you wanted something more curvy a yatagan or a Polish saber.

It's all there is the contemporary records. The real issue is what is the context that makes looking at a design other than a rapier desirable?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

If weight is not an issue, but size and practicality are, then you probably want the largest size sword you still think is practical.

I think half the point of a rapier is that weight is an issue. The design gets a lot of reach out of a blade still light enough to be fast. I think if you want something with a bit more heft and swing to it in the same period you're probably going to look more towards a sabre or something.

What kind of application are you thinking of? You're looking to arm historic fencing master Arnold Schwarzenegger?

[Lemmy]

Well... It's basically a race of humanoids in a setting more or less similar to 1600's Europe. They are considerably stronger than humans and dueling is part of their culture.

[Maat Mons]

Swords intended for dueling will be shaped by the rules the society uses for duels. If both parties begin with their swords sheathed and standing close together, dueling will revolve largely around who can get their sword out the fastest. This will cause people to favor curved blades that aren't all that long. If duels begin with both parties already having weapons in hand and standing some distance apart, longer weapons with greater reach will be preferred. And then there's the issue of whether dueling is done with armor or without. That too will change weapon choice.

[Spiryt]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?

And what about a short sword, considering the same limitations?

What exactly is a "rapier" especially for something like a RPG, is kinda tricky question, but generally, if you make a rapier blade of significantly wide, you end up with something that's no longer a rapier....

So it depends what do you want to achieve, really.

[Satinavian]

Assuming weight and cost weren't issues, but size and practicality still were... What changes would someone make to a rapier? Maybe a wider blade to give it more cutting capacity?

Yes. You would probably end up with something similar to its more battlefield worthy precursers. So like various 15th and 16th century Spanish swords of similar shape. Their main drawback in comparison is weight, so if that is not an issue...