Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. XIV

[Galloglaich]

.

interesting to hear that wheel-locks were more reliable, I wasn't aware of that.

there was also a materials difference - the early wheel-locks used pyrite, while the flint lock used flint and steel.


G

[fusilier]

interesting to hear that wheel-locks were more reliable, I wasn't aware of that.

there was also a materials difference - the early wheel-locks used pyrite, while the flint lock used flint and steel.


G

My understanding is that wheellocks have to be made to a pretty high standard, otherwise they won't function for more than a few shots. The pyrite is in contact with the spinning steel wheel from (almost) the very beginning of the trigger pull, so they don't have those problems that sometimes occur with flintlocks where the flint doesn't force the frizzen all the way open. On a wheellock there's a spring usually connected to the wheel by a short chain, and that chain could break (as could the linkage between the wheel and the pan-cover) -- but assuming that it was all in proper working order (and none of it is "really" complicated), it was a reliable system.

Flintlocks suffer from a lot of vagrancies -- the flint has to be properly knapped and be aligned right in the jaws, the flint can't stick out too far, or too little, the spring can't be too weak, lock "timing" might need to be adjusted too. The shape of the flint can also matter, as some flintlocks work better with flints that are flat on the bottom. The frizzen spring needs to have the right amount of tension, the battery face can't be too smooth or too rough, etc, etc.

Basically, flintlocks require a fair amount of fine "tuning" to operate properly, some of which is clearly up to the user. There's room for mistakes, but until they could figure out the more optimal proportions, the window of proper operation may have been small.

[Mike_G]

Flintlocks must have been pretty forgiving, though, since they were the standard arm of the big conscript armies of the 18th -early 19th century. I can see sharpshooters dealing with the quirks of a finicky weapon, but not the press ganged cannon fodder troops of the line.

[fusilier]

Flintlocks must have been pretty forgiving, though, since they were the standard arm of the big conscript armies of the 18th -early 19th century. I can see sharpshooters dealing with the quirks of a finicky weapon, but not the press ganged cannon fodder troops of the line.

Yeah, I think one of the main reasons it took a while for flintlock (and flintlock like) weapons to displace wheellocks, was that figuring out the ideal proportions to allow them to be forgiving, was a process of trial and error. Some of the really early miquelet locks that I've seen have some weird shapes and proportions (the frizzens are often very small). Although I think by around 1625 it was generally figured out, it still took a while to become popular (for common muskets it was probably expense, but for pistols . . . ).

If you have the chance to compare locks on a military musket to a hunting rifle, or a civilian pistol, you will see the difference in design decisions. All the pieces on the military weapon will be bigger: the throw of the **** will be longer, the frizzen will be bigger, the pan is bigger, often even the vent hole was drilled out to a larger size. The spring will be very heavy, usually requiring two hands to **** the weapon, and military drill puts the soldier in a good position to handle a heavy spring. Altogether, the design is to be as forgiving as possible.

[Roxxy]

So, I was watching Vikings, and I noticed something.As a Jarl marched his troops on patrol, everyone was carrying their shields in the left hand as expected, except for one guy, who was carrying his shield in his right hand. Presumably this is because his actor is left handed. Given that the Norse fought in shield walls, however, and given that these troops did end up having to form one. I am wondering how much of a problem his handedness is. I assume it would be a problem, because the shield wall needs to interlock, and he is carrying his shield on the opposite side as everyone else. That would create a massive vulnerability so far as I know, especially in the first rank.

What say you guys?

[AgentPaper]

So, I was watching Vikings, and I noticed something.As a Jarl marched his troops on patrol, everyone was carrying their shields in the left hand as expected, except for one guy, who was carrying his shield in his right hand. Presumably this is because his actor is left handed. Given that the Norse fought in shield walls, however, and given that these troops did end up having to form one. I am wondering how much of a problem his handedness is. I assume it would be a problem, because the shield wall needs to interlock, and he is carrying his shield on the opposite side as everyone else. That would create a massive vulnerability so far as I know, especially in the first rank.

What say you guys?

Presumably, they would have learned to fight with their shield in their left hand from the beginning, no matter which arm was their preferred one normally.

[Roxxy]

Presumably, they would have learned to fight with their shield in their left hand from the beginning, no matter which arm was their preferred one normally.

How well would that work?

[AgentPaper]

How well would that work?

Depends on the person, and how early in their life they begin practicing that way. Handedness isn't a binary thing, you can be more or less right or left handed, and if you do something for long enough with your off-hand, you can get just as used to doing it as you do with your right. An easy example would be typing: Chances are you're not ambidextrous, but after typing for a few years it's become just as natural to type with your left hand as your right, simply because that's how you learned to do it. I would expect the same thing to apply to swordsmanship.

If you start using your off-hand from the start, there shouldn't really be any problems. If you start using your main hand and switch to your off hand (in this case, from your left to your right), then you'll likely experience some resistance in getting used to the other way, but short of a significant lack of strength and dexterity in your off hand, I wouldn't expect any long-term issues. And even a weak arm can be trained and built up to be stronger and more coordinated with enough time.

Also, something interesting from Wikipedia:

"Interactive sports such as table tennis, badminton, cricket, and tennis have an overrepresentation of left-handedness, while non-interactive sports such as swimming show no overrepresentation. Smaller physical distance between participants increases the overrepresentation. In fencing, about half the participants are left-handed.

The advantage to players in one-on-one sports, such as tennis, boxing, fencing or judo, is that, in a population containing perhaps 10% left-handers and 90% right-handers, the left-hander plays 90% of his or her games against right-handed opponents and is well-practiced at dealing with this asymmetry. Right-handers play 90% of their games against other right-handers. Thus, when confronted with left-handers, they are less practiced (see Rafael Nadal). When two left-handers compete against each other, they are both likely to be at the same level of practice as when right-handers play other right-handers. This explains why a disproportionately high number of left-handers are found in sports in which direct one-on-one action predominates."

I wouldn't be surprised if this was also true for any culture built around single-combat, unless there was a specific stigma attached to fighting left-handed (or left-handedness in general).

[Brother Oni]

How well would that work?

Depends on his weapon, the shape of the shield and how he's fighting, but there won't be any problems with the shield wall interlocking solely from the guy being left handed.

With round shields and one handed weapons, you tend to stab over the top of your shield so there won't be any issue with interfering with your shieldmates on either side. Two handed weapons, like a spear, go under the shield, so a left handed person would mess up the order in a shield wall.

In single combat, there's no real difference except that the left hander may have a slight advantage in that his opponent may not be used to the different angles of attack as Agent Paper pointed out.

I wouldn't be surprised if this was also true for any culture built around single-combat, unless there was a specific stigma attached to fighting left-handed (or left-handedness in general).

There may have been a bit of a religious stigma against left handers, but that's beyond the scope of this forum.

In general though, left handed-ness gave an advantage - castle stairways were often designed to impede right handed invaders fighting upwards, which a left hander could ignore.

In WW1, left handed men were often part of mortar crews due to the weapon's operation and they were universally disliked.

[endoperez]

I can imagine a single situation where a left-hander might be more advantageous to the group than yet another right-hander - the ends of the shield wall. The left-hander, with his shield on his right hand, would perhaps be slightly better at defending the right flank of the shield wall.

[GraaEminense]

When two left-handers compete against each other, they are both likely to be at the same level of practice as when right-handers play other right-handers. This explains why a disproportionately high number of left-handers are found in sports in which direct one-on-one action predominates.

Can´t comment on sports fencing, but in reenactment fighting watching lefties fight each other is sometimes hilarious: While they have an edge against right-handed opponents for the reasons mentioned, they have even less experience fighting left-handed ones since in a population of n lefties, they have n-1 possible opponents. So while the fight should look like a mirrored right-hander-bout, it often doesn´t.

That aside, I´ll echo that the shield wall is not necessarily weakened by letting left-handed and right-handed fighters do their thing -especially with viking-style shields. The exact effect is somewhat dependent on what weapons the two sides are using though. That in mind, both approaches can make sense in early combat training and we don´t have the sources to tell us what was common practice.

[spineyrequiem]

My understanding is that wheellocks have to be made to a pretty high standard, otherwise they won't function for more than a few shots.

As well as this, one thing claimed by a wonderful book I used to own before it vanished into the ether was that wheellocks were much harder to repair once they finally broke; any village blacksmith can fix a matchlock, and probably also a crude-ish flintlock (probably another part of the reason for the oversized parts on military models), but a wheellock has lots of small, complex parts which need to be made to high tolerances, usually by a specialized gunsmith. This would help to explain why wheellocks weren't adopted for the vast majority of militaries.

[Mike_G]

Now this is scarier than comparing tanks and planes.

It's not weapons and armor, but it is military tactics. And it's classic Cold War thinking, updated with modern tech.

[Jay R]

That aside, I´ll echo that the shield wall is not necessarily weakened by letting left-handed and right-handed fighters do their thing -especially with viking-style shields. The exact effect is somewhat dependent on what weapons the two sides are using though. That in mind, both approaches can make sense in early combat training and we don´t have the sources to tell us what was common practice.

It makes less difference in a shield wall, because ideally, the swordsmen aren't delivering the majority of the attacks. The spearmen behind them are. In a shield wall, my shield in direct in front of me. If there's a leftie on my right, his sword and mine can interfere with each other, but only if we let them. The correct solution is to put all the lefties on the left flank.

And in fact, it actively helps for the left flank to be left-handers. That puts their shields between them and their foes when they try to flank the enemy line.

[GraaEminense]

I need to ressurect the WW1 armour discussion for a moment, to share this. For some reason, it seems it was never tried. Can´t imagine why.

[Storm Bringer]

just thought i'd share a vid i came across on youtube, showing how relitivly diffcult it was to get past a spear point and attack a spearman (or woman, as the case may be. The Naginata was the traditional weapon of a female Samurai in japan.)

edit: it would be good idea to actually put the link in the post, wouldn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBbFe9drObk

[Thiel]

I need to ressurect the WW1 armour discussion for a moment, to share this. For some reason, it seems it was never tried. Can´t imagine why.

It's not quite the same, but the Austrians did fiddle about with something similar.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/austrian-body-armor/

[GraaEminense]

It's not quite the same, but the Austrians did fiddle about with something similar.
http://www.forgottenweapons.com/austrian-body-armor/

Neat. Someone obviously read Popular Mechanics.

[Thiel]

While we don't really know anything about the shield other than what's in the pictures I suspect it's intended for wire cutting and pioneer squads.

[GraaEminense]

It looks too specialized for that. I'm guessing the second picture sums it up: anti-sniper protection for snipers or guards, "conveniently" doubling up as a breastplate.

[Thiel]

I'm not so sure. The vision slit and covered hand holes at the front doesn't track with that.

[Roxxy]

I need to ressurect the WW1 armour discussion for a moment, to share this. For some reason, it seems it was never tried. Can´t imagine why.

snip

I can think of five different reasons that's a stupid idea, and that was just a ten second brainstorm.

[fusilier]

I need to ressurect the WW1 armour discussion for a moment, to share this. For some reason, it seems it was never tried. Can´t imagine why.

It was tried, and it was referred to as a "creep tank" -- googling that brings up some strange things, but I did get this image of a couple of French ones (I've seen other ones too):



Some other variants can be seen here.
http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/sh...d.php?t=109732

[fusilier]

As well as this, one thing claimed by a wonderful book I used to own before it vanished into the ether was that wheellocks were much harder to repair once they finally broke; any village blacksmith can fix a matchlock, and probably also a crude-ish flintlock (probably another part of the reason for the oversized parts on military models), but a wheellock has lots of small, complex parts which need to be made to high tolerances, usually by a specialized gunsmith. This would help to explain why wheellocks weren't adopted for the vast majority of militaries.

That sounds about right. Although militaries used wheellocks, but usually the soldier himself paid for the weapon (cavalry armed with pistols, riflemen, etc.). They may have been retained for special use by the common infantry from time-to-time too, for example troops guarding the powder supply were often equipped with some sort of firelock during the 17th century.

Matchlocks were quite simple, and I believe that most blacksmiths would have the ability to fix one. Wheellocks don't have lots of little pieces as far as I can tell, but they have a few that could be fiddly. Even an early and primitive flintlock would have some screws and whatnot, but probably things that were more familiar and straightforward to work on. The idea that the wheellock is really complicated I think is an exaggeration, probably influenced by their rather odd, and unfamiliar nature. But they do seem to require some fiddly parts (and they are certainly *more* complicated than flintlocks).

I've done some assembly work on a replica of an early miquelet lock (not having my own drill press has caused the work to go in spurts), and it is relatively straightforward. Screws and pins and wedges. No really tiny parts for linkages, although it does use three springs.

[Storm Bringer]

I need to ressurect the WW1 armour discussion for a moment, to share this. For some reason, it seems it was never tried. Can´t imagine why.

shortest answer: compare the well drained, solid grass covered earth of that painting with this picture of a forest near Ypres in 1917.

or this before and after shot of Passchendale. weeks of artillary fire does that to a place.

now imagine trying to move that, heavy, narrow wheeled tropeado thing through that mud.....

[Galloglaich]

Now this is scarier than comparing tanks and planes.

It's not weapons and armor, but it is military tactics. And it's classic Cold War thinking, updated with modern tech.

That is indeed scary - though I suspect it is happening on both sides.

G

[Roxxy]

shortest answer: compare the well drained, solid grass covered earth of that painting with this picture of a forest near Ypres in 1917.

or this before and after shot of Passchendale. weeks of artillary fire does that to a place.

now imagine trying to move that, heavy, narrow wheeled tropeado thing through that mud.....

Imagine trying to get out of it to fight while under machine gun and rifle fire. It's got a horrible shape for getting in and out quickly. Hell, imagine lifting it out of a trench in preparation for an assault.

Imagine trying to move it on any terrain not on a downhill gradient, even if it's smooth concrete. It looks hard to push it with your legs.

Imagine how much of a resource hog it is to produce those things if they are common issue and not special use.

Imagine encountering barbed wire (even cut) while in this thing.

I hate it. Hate hate hate it. It's stupid, ineffective, and dangerous.

[AgentPaper]

That is indeed scary - though I suspect it is happening on both sides.

G

Not really, at least not at the same scale. Ukraine doesn't have the resources to do what Russia is, and the rest of the west isn't interested enough to risk their reputation on it.

Though again, this is getting into the politics of the situation, which we should probably avoid.

[snowblizz]

I was wondering about the whole "lefty" situation. I've been told that historically if you were left handed well tough, now you are a clumsy right-hander. No sensitivity to the somewhat different...

For most people I suspect it didn't particularly matter which way you grab the hoe, but I have trouble envisioning more organised armies/forces trying to work around the lefties rather than making them righties.
Seeing how "sinister" comes from the latin word for left and dexterous form latin's right... societal pressures would presumably not "allow" for much leftism. Ie at some point being left-handed was literally considered evil.

I think we are applying a much to modern spin on it when trying to think how a left handed person works in the shield-wall. I strongly suspect they were simply considered clumsy people as they were taught to use their right hand.
How far back does the idea of a dominant hand go, and actually allowing a deviation from the norm, anyone know?
How does eg fencing manuals take account of this? Do they? Is there other literary examples of left handed fighters?

But it kinda depends on the circumstances perhaps. In a Roman legion I'd expect everyone trained right-handed regardless, whereas a gladiator is found left-handed could maybe be trained in a such a way. Similar to the tennis analogy.

[Mr. Mask]

I'm not so sure distaste of left-handedness went so deep as that. Soldiers and warriors tend to be practical people, so if one of their valuable commodities (soldiers) can be more valuable fighting a certain way, if it doesn't disrupt the formation they're likely to go with it. I remember a case in the American Civil War. They're told to lie down, one of the guys doesn't. Officer asks why. He says that he can't shoot well when lying down. "OK... but you better find a thicker tree to stand behind."

I can't say for certain with any particular culture.