Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sean Mirrsen]

It looks like something the Hulk could use. Tear an I-beam in half lengthwise, slap the halves' flat sides together, voila.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm pretty sure Banner could design something more useful if the Hulk ever needed to use weapons. Besides, with the kind of strength Hulk has, he'd probably destroy any weapons made out of something so flimsy as steel pretty fast when he gets down to...um...smashing...time.

[Radio Controlled]

Skeletor, if you liked He-man as a kid. Purple cap optional.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Yoink]

SKELETOR WILL WIN ONE DAY

We just have to believe in him.

[Tavik Toth]

Hey Sean, can you draw Jack trying to paint his APC of just sitting on it? Or if that's to much, can you draw what my Halberd vehicle design would look like?

[syvarris]

But I decided against it. Saving my money for a Bar Mace. Because I love the thing from a design standpoint. It's about as utilitarian as possible but rather brutally effective, in theory.  Plus it's a flanged mace crossed with a baseball bat. You don't get much cooler then that.

I kinda doubt that mace being particularly effective.  Especially against zombies.

The edges are thin enough that I'm pretty sure you'd cut in a bit to flesh, but they're too short and blunt to do a lot of slashing damage, unless you hit an artery (which tend to be hard to get with a long weapon).  I wonder if it would have a tendency to get stuck too.

The blunt damage would probably be good, but it's probably reduced by the edges.  Some amount of energy is going to be expended in cutting, and it won't just be dumped in all at once.  And it's spread over a long area.  I wouldn't be surprised if it could break arms anyways though.

Overall, it looks like a decent anti-armor weapon.  Or anti-skull.  I bet it would be brutally effective against either of those targets, but a simple steel baton of the same weight and length would probably be about as, or more, effective.  And of course, you don't plan on actually using it (I hope)- I'm guessing it's just a talking piece to hang on the wall.

And of course, I am by far no expert on melee weapons.  I've read about some stuff, and have a decent idea of how the body reacts to various trauma, but no real practical experience.  *shrug*

I prefer kukris.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, judging by my understanding of physics, even a dull edge provides more force than a flat plane--less surface area, more pressure. That's better for fracturing skulls, which is good on zombies--you gotta remove the head or destroy the brain, and decapitation usually leaves a zombie head. Those things are like undead landmines.

[kisame12794]

GWG has the right idea. You aren't gonna hit the guy with the full length of the weapon, and the ridges would only serve to focus that force even more. This is a brutal anti-armor weapon. With a good swing, this could easily pierce armor, and even if it didn't, the force would still be enough to either knock the guy senseless, or break bone.

[Tavik Toth]

Well, judging by my understanding of physics, even a dull edge provides more force than a flat plane--less surface area, more pressure. That's better for fracturing skulls, which is good on zombies--you gotta remove the head or destroy the brain, and decapitation usually leaves a zombie head. Those things are like undead landmines.

Unless the zombies that can be killed from being shot in the chest or other parts of the body.

[Xanmyral]

Maces and the like often had flanges and wings for the very purpose of dealing with armor. European fighting styles back when tended to weigh heavily in dealing with armor. Hence mercy daggers, mordhau, half-swording, flanges, etc. For a weapon that's a product of the thirteen hundreds, its design isn't that surprising.

Might get through some good armor if you hit a particularly weak spot or a joint, which is pretty good for the simplicity of the weapon.

[Tavik Toth]

And then there's the Zwehanders and WARHAMMERS.

[syvarris]

...Didn't I say it would be good against armor, and skulls, in specific?

....

Oh, I didn't put a 'against flesh' clause for the metal rod comparison.  Well, I meant that a metal rod would be more effective against an unarmored human.  I don't think the ridge would really help to increase force against flesh and muscle- quite the opposite.  But it would be more effective against armor, yeah.  _{who wears armor nowadays...}

And that thing is not decapitating a zombie.  I mean, just look at it!  How would it go through the neck?  I could see it penetrating a inch and a half maybe, but no further.  Might snap the neck, I guess.  And if you hit the skull, I bet it would get a bit stuck, which would be really really bad if there's more than one zombie.

Also it's massive.  Sword length.  That's not a good enclosed area weapon, which is where you would actually need a melee weapon.  What person, who had time to prepare, would attack a zombie in the open with a melee weapon?


@Scotsman in On-ship thread
Do you want advice on that sheet?  There's several inefficiencies in it.

[Xanmyral]

Now a days, what with armor more meant to deal with bullets (and thus more ablative than actually protective), it is true that a single wide surface would be better. But considering when the weapon was made, it wasn't made with the idea in mind of being optimized against unarmored foes.

The flanges could still come in handy if your opponent was particularly padded, meaning to disperse the force before it actually reaches them. Of course, one can only wear so much padding before it becomes more hindrance than helpful.

The picture has a ruler next to it, looking to be a regular foot long ruler, so it doesn't appear to be more than a two and a bit less than a half feet going by the bottom. In practice it'll be more than one and a half, less than two feet because of the handle. The pommel would come in handy against foes any closer, as they do with any sword, and it appears to be weighted similar to a sword due to its presence.

EDIT: Looked at the picture again. Ah, there's measurements at the bottom.

[piecewise]

I've got a few books specifically about injuring people, specifically one that was written by a doctor as a guide for writers about how to hurt characters and what specific damage and weapons would do.  Combining that with the knowledge I have of physics, I'd say that the bar mace would be most effective when:

Striking to the head (Top of the head is best, but really anywhere works. The face is kinda delicate), throat (specifically the windpipe or around the Carotid sinus), Shins (the front of the tibia is quite near the surface of the leg and has little padding from muscle or skin. It also has a big fucking nerve running straight down the front. A blow to the shin is bad news bears even if it doesn't break a bone.) hands, genitals or shoulders, specifically near the neck so you can hit the collar bone.

Blows to the arms work alright, upper legs are too muscled and padded for much, and the rip cage will protect the chest, though you may break a rib or two. The gut might cause internal bleeding and will certainly cause a lot of pain, but isn't very fatal, at least not quickly. The back is too flat for you to get a good, focused enough force to break the spine. Knee caps work, if you can manage to be that precise.

Like many blunt weapons, you're really going to be aiming for the head unless you're trying to incapacitate them first. 

Personally I just like it because
1. It solves  or at least lessens the COB problem that maces generally have, making it theoretically easier to use.
2. It's rarely heard of and even more rare to see, existing only in a small section of Europe for a short period of time.
3. I dunno why, but it just feels like it would be a real bastard of a weapon. There's an inherent brutality to it, like a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire (In actuality that is a pretty shit weapon).

[GreatWyrmGold]

Well, judging by my understanding of physics, even a dull edge provides more force than a flat plane--less surface area, more pressure. That's better for fracturing skulls, which is good on zombies--you gotta remove the head or destroy the brain, and decapitation usually leaves a zombie head. Those things are like undead landmines.

Unless the zombies that can be killed from being shot in the chest or other parts of the body.

Which is the exception rather than the rule, for zombies of the apocalyptic variety.

...Didn't I say it would be good against armor, and skulls, in specific?

Indeed. Yet, somehow, you came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be very good against xombies. For shame!

Oh, I didn't put a 'against flesh' clause for the metal rod comparison.  Well, I meant that a metal rod would be more effective against an unarmored human.  I don't think the ridge would really help to increase force against flesh and muscle- quite the opposite.

The force would be the same, assuming equal mass and deceleration. The pressure would increase, and the effectiveness may decrease depending on what you're trying to do. It would probably break bones better.

_{who wears armor nowadays...}

Brains, for one.

And that thing is not decapitating a zombie.  I mean, just look at it!  How would it go through the neck?  I could see it penetrating a inch and a half maybe, but no further.  Might snap the neck, I guess.  And if you hit the skull, I bet it would get a bit stuck, which would be really really bad if there's more than one zombie.

My point was that you could smash the brain, and that decapitation is overrated anyways.
And no, it wouldn't get stuck. How would it? The human body is composed of 80% water, not 80% glue.

Also it's massive.  Sword length.  That's not a good enclosed area weapon, which is where you would actually need a melee weapon.  What person, who had time to prepare, would attack a zombie in the open with a melee weapon?

Scale's hard to tell from the picture, but melee would also be helpful at greater-than-dagger distances.

I've got a few books specifically about injuring people, specifically one that was written by a doctor as a guide for writers about how to hurt characters and what specific damage and weapons would do.

Huh, that's a pretty useful-sounding book. What's it called?

Striking to the head (Top of the head is best, but really anywhere works. The face is kinda delicate), throat (specifically the windpipe or around the Carotid sinus), Shins (the front of the tibia is quite near the surface of the leg and has little padding from muscle or skin. It also has a big fucking nerve running straight down the front. A blow to the shin is bad news bears even if it doesn't break a bone.) hands, genitals or shoulders, specifically near the neck so you can hit the collar bone.
Blows to the arms work alright, upper legs are too muscled and padded for much, and the rip cage will protect the chest, though you may break a rib or two. The gut might cause internal bleeding and will certainly cause a lot of pain, but isn't very fatal, at least not quickly. The back is too flat for you to get a good, focused enough force to break the spine. Knee caps work, if you can manage to be that precise.
Like many blunt weapons, you're really going to be aiming for the head unless you're trying to incapacitate them first.

In the context of a zombie apocalypse, busting heads and (to a lesser extent) breaking limbs are all that matters. Seems like that would be useful for those.