Print

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

[Andeerz]

What Funk said.

Also, if a weapon is too light, wouldn't all that energy go into breaking the weapon and sending it spinning away? But that's maybe what you mean by unavoidable structural considerations.

YUP!!!  That's exactly what I meant by structural considerations.

Andeerz,

The KE = (1/2)mv^2 (energy needed to get something up to speed) ends up being different than the energy delivered.  If that were true, SCA combat does not have a min weight requirement for weapons, and everyone would have a 1lb sword.

I wish I had the schooling to explain this properly, but when swinging a weapon, energy is given to it.  When it hits, most of the energy is transferred to the target.  The issue becomes with the word most.  If the energy to penetrate the armor is greater than the energy needed to break the weapon, the weapon will break and energy is lost.  Lighter generally means weaker.

Weapons genearally were the heaviest one could use and practice with for 30 min at a stretch.  Yes, sword work requires practice, lots of it.  Meadeval swords practice starts with a pell, a log stuck in the ground.  One would practice a sword shot by hitting the pell in the same exact spot.  I would start my practice by puttin a piece of duct tape on the pell (where I wanted to practice hitting), then striking that tape untill it fell off.  Somewhere between 100-300 shots daily.  For 2 years.  And yes, even after all this, I preferred a 4lb sword.

Your post got me thinking.  Hard.  And you are in essence right!  However, I am absolutely ignoring the material strength of the weapon and any energy that goes into deforming and breaking and stuff (afore mentioned structural considerations).  I am treating weapon and the object impacted as perfectly elastic for the sake of understanding the role of mass of a weapon in its design.  So, I did the math and reviewed some physics and here's what I concluded.

Basically what mass of a weapon determines (all else equal and given a perfectly elastic collision) is how the energy is distributed between weapon and the struck object after impact.  Lets assume the same amount of kinetic energy is possessed by weapon A and weapon B.  Both hit a larger mass C.  Weapon A is lighter than weapon B.  Weapon A moves faster because it's lighter.  Weapon B moves slower.  But remember that both have the same kinetic energy.  When weapon A hits C, less energy is imparted to C than if B hit C.  Here's another example for redundancy: imagine a person hitting a nail with a light hammer really fast and hard vs. someone using a sledge with the same energy.  The light hammer is going to bounce back a lot more than the heavy hammer and, according to the math (assuming I did the math right and properly understand conservation of momentum!!!) the heavy hammer will have transferred more energy to the nail than the light hammer.  So that's the trade off, which is basically what people said before but I didn't understand...  but now I do!!! 
I hope this is clear and can help lead to a better understanding of how to better model weapons in game!!!

  Woot!  Here's the wiki pages that helped me understand this!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer#The_physics_of_hammering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum

And marcusbjol, I'll ask again, will you be going to Pennsic this year?  :3

[Hyndis]

I'm not sure of the exact prices of gear, but consider these two options assuming both sides have equal budgets but have taken different approaches:

1 armored, bullet-proof soldier with 1 musket
vs
50 unarmored soldiers with 50 muskets

How much ammo does that one soldier have?

Assuming this is the 1700's or 1800's, that musket has a 20 second reload time.

That means after the first 20 seconds it would be 1 vs 49. Then while the armored soldier is reloading the 49 remaining unarmored soldiers just run up to him and take him down in hand to hand combat.

A lone knight with a greatsword in full Gothic plate armor would be easily defeated by a mob of unarmed, unarmored peasants. With a musket, once you fire you're stuck with just an awkward metal tube until you reload.

Automatic weapon change things entirely of course. Also yes, assuming a high level of technology if you can see it you can kill it. But the average Taliban fighter is not rolling down the streets in tanks. They have an AK-47. Maybe an RPG if they're lucky, but RPG's are dangerous mostly due to shrapnel. A direct hit from an RPG would probably pierce the armor, but luckily one of those 20 year old Soviet RPG's tends not to be very accurate.

[Neonivek]

We arn't counting hand to hand combat.

Since a lot of the time the ways Plate was taken down wasn't through killing the individual... it was with tackling them

[Hyndis]

We arn't counting hand to hand combat.

Since a lot of the time the ways Plate was taken down wasn't through killing the individual... it was with tackling them

Unless the weapons involved are breach loading cartridges, hand to hand combat will be a factor. Before breach loading rifles using cartridge ammunition were invented it was common for a battle to be decided hand to hand, even though both sides had firearms. The fire rate of a muzzle loader was just too low to prevent someone from closing to point blank range and countering with a bayonet.

Its only within the past 150 years or so that ranged weapons have advanced to the point where they are so completely and utterly dominant. The US Civil War introduced some of the first reliable breach loading cartridge rifles, and those changed warfare forever.

Early reliable version:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle (1850's)

Rifle that changed history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_rifle  (1873)

Up until then you got off 3 shots per minute if you were good. Better make sure they count!   

[Neonivek]

From what I remembered... I THINK most kills during World War 1 were hand to hand.

I could be wrong.

[Hyndis]

From what I remembered... I THINK most kills during World War 1 were hand to hand.

I could be wrong.

 

No, WWI was all about using Napoleonic tactics, doing bayonet charges against machine guns throwing up walls of bullets.

Old generals fighting with old tactics against new weapons. Thats why it was a complete and utter slaughter.

[Andeerz]

http://www.amazon.com/First-World-War-Twentieth-Century-Wars/dp/0333745353

A wonderful book on the matter!  Czech it out!

Also, an interesting period in the history of warfare (as if there's such thing as an uninteresting period) is the late 15th C. until the 18th which saw the change in cavalry and footsoldier tactics and outfitting that could be considered the demise of the armoured soldier.  I have no sources to recommend at this time.  Keep in mind there was a period of time where you did have noble heavily armoured cavalry that used firearms on horseback.

From what I understand about the matter (and I am no expert on this and I could be full of shit) what began to do in the absolute domination of the armoured knight in battle was not necessarily gunpowder alone (though it did make plate largely useless towards the end and made quickly trained conscript armies much more effective), but the rise of organized, well armed and/or armoured professional armies again in Western Europe that had ranks derived from non-nobility... sort of a rise of the lower class, nationalism, and the fall of the feudal system sorta thing.  Throughout most of the Middle Ages, there was virtually no such thing as a standing army other than the nobles that agreed to fight with you if they felt like it and liked you.  Knights kicked ass against masses of conscripted peasant levies with virtually no armor and training.  After reading a book on the general history of knighthood ("Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight"), I came away with the impression that basically nobility were involved in combat so long as their chances of dying were small and fighting was profitable, a situation that was not easy to have if large organized armies existed.  The political and economic situation perpetuated by the Feudal system seemed to encourage that kind of situation where a heavily armoured elite nobility could exist and be effective in combat.  I dunno... this is all speculation on my part.

[Funk]

as i understand you hit the nail on the head.
the idea that one weapon(guns)just change the face of war is simply takeing a bord view.

it can even be said that warfare move back after the 15th, back to roman times even. 

[Hyndis]

Yup.

The decline of the knight even started with the crossbow. It allowed a peasant to, in complete safety and at long range, kill a heavily armed and armored knight who has trained for warfare from the age of 8.

It was downright ungentlemanly!

Guns continued that trend, until pretty soon the knight was dead. Literally and figuratively. Industrial warfare changed things, so that the nation that could produce and arm the most troops won. Essentially, quantity over quality. In single close combat a knight was a fearsome opponent, but no one ever won a war by playing fair.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Pretty much that.

 

[uttaku]

your wrong Hyndis, no weapon was responsible for the decline of the knight it was economic pressures and changing attitudes amongst the noblity that did.
As i've already dealt twith economic factors I'll have my little rant about changing attitudes.
The most common misconseption with this topic is that the nobility wanted to remain as knights and that it was peasants who made the changes. In fact this could not be more wrong it was the nobles who funded gunpowder research and even took an active interest in the field itself, Charles the Bold of Burgundy was considered the most chivalris noble in all europe, however he also had europes largest artillery park at the time, Charles V enjoyed building pistol mechanisms. Additionally views within Europe changed on the role of nobles in warfare, with the dawn of the renaissance and the looking back the classical times nobles started to ape the great commanders of these times, who commanded the troops rather than lead them in combat, this meant that those who still did fight as knights were viewed as hindbound and outdated.

rant over.

[RavingManiac]

Before the 17th century or so, they were actually making plate armor that could withstand musket fire, or at least deflect anything other than a square shot. The problem was that armor was expensive, to the point that only nobility could afford wearing a full suit. With the decline of feudalism and the centralization of power under a single monarch, the fighting lord became a rarity, and professional armies became more economical.

[uttaku]

RavingManiac just to be really picky, actually no armour could withsatand a musket shot up to the 17th century, what you mean is that it could withstand an Arquebus shot, muskets up to that period were actually far larger, requiring a support, and often two men to operate.
The musket proper referring to a heavier weapon, firing a heavier shot, which had to balance on a rest. to quote wiki.

[marcusbjol]

Economic vs Range weapons - Both right.

There was no guarantee that the one peasant with succeed killing a knight with his crossbow before the knight got into range.  There is a reasonable level of certainty that 50 peasants (untrained) with crossbows could take down an armored knight.  The peasants and crossbows where cheaper by far.

Saying that it was an economic development might be true.  One could then ask what started that development.  Is it that a crossbow shortened the lives of the fighting nobility and the smart rulers saw the need for change and adapted first appearing to lead the trend?  Economics is very reactionary, meaning something else causes change, not economics itself.  Medevial society was very, very resistant to change, to the point of actively purging those who were not the norm.  Being a man-at-arms and acknowleging crossbows as deadly makes one look at how he can react to it.  That man-at-arms does give up his position in court because society would be better served by a different military.  Saying because the nobility funded the research does not mean they wanted to give up their positions in court.  The changes to society they wrought were done in self interest and self interest alone.  As the world view at the time was one where everyone had their place and any change was bad, if Charles the Bold of Burgundy had tried to change society, he would not have been viewed as the most chivalrous, as part of the code of chivalry is to maintain the current order.

Biggest case in point to how reactionary thought had been in the past can be shown with the lack of change in warfare from 1400 to 1900.  Even with the rising power of ranged weaponry, troops were always tighly packed.  This was exploited in 1400 because peasants were recruited to fire crossbows based on their reload speed, no accuracty (they just pointed in a direction and shot, farthest recorded kill for a crossbow was 5 miles it was a complete luck shot off a tower ontop of a cliff into an advancing army).  It took 500 years for people to figure out standing in the middle of a field is a bad idea if people are shooting at you.  Yes, this is very simplistic, but the point I am trying to make, the English had a hard time with the French and Native Americans in the mid 1700s because they did not "stand up and fight", and they still hadn't changed their tactics to fight WWI.

I would actually posit that society itself caused the unnecessary extension of the man-at-arms life.

[marcusbjol]

Reactionary Societies - We are currently in one.

Someone who straps a bomb on himself, walks into somewhere and blows it up is effective.  We dont do this because we find it morally repugnant.  Morality aside, it is the only way people can really fight a conflict with the USA and do so for any length of time. It is effective.

Our word for it is Terrorist.

Funny thing, the definition Terrorist has been used with some flexibility by our politicians.  To the point of labeling those using illegal drugs as a Terrorist.  To the point so implying that someone not wanting spend more money to fund the Iraq war as a Terrorist.  The attempted purging of dissimilar views?

[MaDeR Levap]

...

Discussion about weapons was fascinating. Political trolling... not so. Go away to some political forum. I am here to forget about our crappy world[1], not to be reminded about it.
[1] Instead of it I play in fantasy crappy world. Ah well.