|
Related to this, on the IRemember site, one of the tankers tells a story about the tommy guns that came with the M4. One of the dudes quarreled with another guy and he shot him with the thompson, but the bullet got stuck in his padded winter jacket.
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Here's the tests I'm referring to: The writeup does not mention whether or not the testers wadded, though, and a perennial complaint among the people who tell musketeers to do things is that they do not wad. I wonder how much of a difference that would make? ("Sample musket was test-fired by giving it to a bored and contemptuous young man who nodded when we told him to do something, did what he had originally planned to do anyway, and then muttered about us under his breath. Content of mutterings recorded in Table II(a).") Edit: Also, I used to think that once we got the basic proportions down all black powder was more or less the same, but then I read a paper on how the French kept improving theirs throughout the 18th century so now I wonder whether or not modern powder is better than 17th century powder. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Feb 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:Related to this, on the IRemember site, one of the tankers tells a story about the tommy guns that came with the M4. One of the dudes quarreled with another guy and he shot him with the thompson, but the bullet got stuck in his padded winter jacket. I've heard that the M1A1 carbine would be stopped at range by sufficiently thick overcoats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Anyone have any thoughts on this video and what this guy is doing? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEG-ly9tQGk
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
500 years in the future, some softair trickshot will claim that he unearthed old harddrives with secret knowledge of rapid Taliban over-the-head firing. He will then proceed to post a video of him piercing bodyarmor with his high danger soft air gun, while making claims that no other person managed to do that yet and everybody shooting real rifles is doing it wrong. Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I've heard that the M1A1 carbine would be stopped at range by sufficiently thick overcoats. I've heard about it too. But it's probably just some ricochet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:I've heard that the M1A1 carbine would be stopped at range by sufficiently thick overcoats. This is an old myth that has been tested to hell and back by both history and gun geeks. Every single time the conclusion is ".30 carbine is completely capable of going through a goddamned poo poo ton of cloth." The round is in the same ballpark as .44 magnum in terms of performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:This is an old myth that has been tested to hell and back by both history and gun geeks. Every single time the conclusion is ".30 carbine is completely capable of going through a goddamned poo poo ton of cloth." The round is in the same ballpark as .44 magnum in terms of performance. Hey I'm sure that there is eventually a sufficient range where it could be stopped by an overcoat. Just walk a few kilometers away and hope there isn't a breeze. Kaal fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Feb 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 08:01
|
|
|
Martello posted:Anyone have any thoughts on this video and what this guy is doing? really cool tricks that everyone would say are awesome if he was not also claiming a bunch of unsourced/poorly researched bullshit while using a bow completely unsuited for war.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:really cool tricks that everyone would say are awesome if he was not also claiming a bunch of unsourced/poorly researched bullshit while using a bow completely unsuited for war. Yeah, I fell for that video initially but then some people set me straight. Basically if it were just a trick shots video it would be awesome, but the narration assumes a lot. Also the fact that he's using such a lightweight bow puts a lot of people off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
If he can do these tricks without constantly cutting, it's fine. Shooting like that doesn't work with a heavy bow. You can't shoot them with the hand musculature like he does. You need your back muscles and form, or you'll end up with the barber surgeon. Pulling and shooting are two different pair of shoes. I can pull 70#, but I can't shoot 50.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:This is an old myth that has been tested to hell and back by both history and gun geeks. Every single time the conclusion is ".30 carbine is completely capable of going through a goddamned poo poo ton of cloth." Can't remember which it was, but I read some popular history book which both perpetuated the carbine being stopped by winter coats myth while at the same time giving an anecdote from one guy about how the general marksmanship of US soldiers had taken a nosedive between WWII and Korea. Of course there was no connection made between the two.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
From studying medieval artwork I've found out that medieval buildings were actually really tiny and that huge castles are a Hollywood myth. Examples:    I have therefore unlocked the secrets of medieval master builders and plan to build a bunch of really tiny castles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:From studying medieval artwork I've found out that medieval buildings were actually really tiny and that huge castles are a Hollywood myth. I think you're missing the most important thing here: That dog has a fuckin CAPE. A French cape!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
French chiq. Even the dogs are well dressed. Everybody gets chopped in the head in the 2nd pic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:From studying medieval artwork I've found out that medieval buildings were actually really tiny and that huge castles are a Hollywood myth. No no you've got it all wrong, in medieval times people were impossibly large.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
I really like the dude hanging off the trebuchet in the margins in the second image. Surprisingly playful imagery. Does anyone know what exactly is going on in that third image? Judging from the leading lady's horse blanket thingy, she's from or represents England back when they still claimed France, and the other dude's fleur-de-lis is pretty obvious. So what prompted this friendly tete-a-tete? Particularly given how most of the people in the foreground seem to be gender-segregated for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
A shipment of "good" looking english ladies, to finally break the morale of the french?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:If he can do these tricks without constantly cutting, it's fine. Shooting like that doesn't work with a heavy bow. You can't shoot them with the hand musculature like he does. You need your back muscles and form, or you'll end up with the barber surgeon. I've managed to shoot and hit a (close) target with a 100# yew longbow. You basically need to use your entire body. Met a guy at the range who had a 150# . That was hilarious. Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
ASK: I've been studying and practicing Medieval and Renaissance Martial Arts for about two years now, and a much more proficient practitioner than myself brought up a question: In most of the fight manuals from 1300 - 1600 that feature the long sword (both German and Italian sources) most of the illustrations show un-armored figures. It is my understanding that the idea of using a long sword in field combat was only viable when sufficient armor was available so that a shield became less necessary. So, my (read: my stolen) question is: why do so many of the manuals feature unarmored men practicing many techniques that would only work on unarmored adversaries?? To be clear, many of the texts (Fiore, for example) feature tons of techniques that would be completely applicable to fighting someone in armor, but even his long sword section begins with a play that is just slashing a dude's arm from a sword bind! And pretty much all of Meyer's 1570 (I think...) consists of moves that you actually want an opponent to throw at you if you had armor on. Was it just because they thought that the long sword was badass and fighting with it was manly?? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. Thanks in advance!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
hydrocoptic posted:ASK: Longswords were also carried for personal defence in a non-military context, such as during travel or when out-and-about in an urban context, when armour would not be worn. Also, a lot of the pictures (Talhoffer's, especially) show an unarmoured judicial duel. It's more capable than an arming sword by itself and less cumbersome than sword and shield. That's all there is to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:If he can do these tricks without constantly cutting, it's fine. Shooting like that doesn't work with a heavy bow. You can't shoot them with the hand musculature like he does. You need your back muscles and form, or you'll end up with the barber surgeon. Now I'm not an expert on archery but I´ve always been under the impression that war archery usually meant that there were a lot of archers standing together and shooting their arrows in large volleys. It seems to be me that if everyone was running around like a demented acrobat and doing all sorts of tricks and spins and jumps they'd inevitably run into each other which would make it a bit harder for them to actually shoot the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:I think you're missing the most important thing here: That dog has a fuckin CAPE. A French cape!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
A: Hm. Hundreths of people running around and shooting. Wait, that could actually work. They won't get hit by the enemy if they move! B: Sir! Grave news! The men are bumping into each shooting themselves. We have lost 50 people to our own fire.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:A: Hm. Hundreths of people running around and shooting. Wait, that could actually work. They won't get hit by the enemy if they move! Obviously they should start practicing how to catch each other's arrows in midair and then shoot them back at the enemy before they hit the ground.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 08:50
|
|
|
I want to see a person do that with a broadhead that goes over 200 fps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Though you guys might enjoy this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxFY917UH8
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Funny stuff. Weird arrowheads to shoot at armor though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
I get the feeling it's just what they had on hand e: maybe he didn't want to ruin his "good" arrowheads
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 13:26
|
|
|
There's a video of some tv-show around where Zack Djurica shoots at a half pig and then at some suit of armor. The producers didn't tell him what they planed to do in the scene and he ended up with just bringing some small bronze heads that bent when they shot it at armor.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 13:46
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:A shipment of "good" looking english ladies, to finally break the morale of the french? The joke is everyone's dentistry sucked back then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
hydrocoptic posted:ASK: Full plate makes swords mostly useless apart from a few half-sword techniques where you grip the sword in the middle with your second hand and try to work its point into the gaps of your opponents armor (they even developed special "swords" for that, that had lost their edge and were basically skewers with a sword hilt). Edit: "Stabbing" was the word I was looking for. vvv True enough, but even mail is a serious problem for a sword. And I would call everything below mail "light armor". Nektu fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Worth noting too that not everyone (and not everyone's horse) is going to be decked out in plate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
Back to rulesperging...Verisimilidude posted:This is fine for a fun side tournament, but for an actual open longsword or whatever tournament I feel things like "lifepoints" can be a bad idea. Imho it wouldnt be bad for trying to find a realistic interpretation of the sources though... Verisimilidude posted:It ends up turning into a game, and it becomes less about being a technical fencer and more about playing within the confines of the game. The current framework of "most hits per timeframe" gives the good fencer room to shine - he will not be taken out by a lucky, single hit. Verisimilidude posted:It should be a given that fighters should be able to dispatch their opponent while defending their lives, which is why so many people contend with the concept of afterblows, but even the best fencers in the world get hit from time to time. It's the nature of bladed weapons that you're both going to get cut, and by adequately measuring the difference between the potential wounds (say hitting someone in the head and in return getting stabbed in the thigh) you can get a good idea for who "won" the fight Verisimilidude posted:(the person who is alive the longest, perhaps).  )FreudianSlippers posted:Just have it so you're not "dead" until you've fallen over or yielded. Steels is 9 (iirc) times as dense as bones/tissue. Shattering bones and cleaving tissue with it is not hard, even when the "blades" have no cutting edge. Nektu fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Nektu posted:That works well in unarmed fighting - with weapons (especially steel - even when the blades are not sharp) the consequences of the hits are more dire than a sane person would risk for a sporting event (unless he/she is wearing appropriate armor of course which all but negates the "until you've falled over or yielded" part). These rules do apply to harnischfechten (armored fighting) since a sword isn't going to penetrate armor. You essentially need to lever your opponent to the ground, and get them into a position where you can stab them with either the point of your sword or your dagger. However like you said, for blossfechten (unarmored fighting) you end up grievously wounding the other person. You can assume someone would win a bout based on who hit what and when, and ultimately that will come with stronger judging techniques and skilled judges.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
hydrocoptic posted:ASK: Hi there! That is a really interesting question, which I’d like to tackle from a few angles. First, battlefield: Personally I suspect the decline of the shield was for more reasons than just armour, because two-handed weapons (pikes, war flails, pinned staves) were also used by troops without full armour around the same time that longswords became popular, such as the Battle of Golden Spurs in 1302, or the Swiss halberdiers around a similar time period, or later German levies requiring pikes and war flails alongside “body armour of iron or jerkin” (which can just mean padded cloth defences, those were good but also in use when shields were almost universal), and no shields mentioned anywhere. So one reason to pick a longsword for battle is because I might use a halberd as my main weapon, which cannot be used with a shield, so I might pick a different sidearm based on that. Another point is that the knights may be well-armoured enough not to use a shield, that does not mean their opponents are necessarily as well-armoured. So those techniques against unarmoured opponents will still work against someone in partial armour (a breastplate with the arms exposed) or padded jacks (that you might still be able to cut through). So Fiore’s example of slashing someone’s arm from a sword bind would still work. Other contexts: Judicial duels had restrictions, such as forcing you to fight unarmoured. Street-fights would be difficult to bring a shield to, so a longsword is better than just a single-handed sword, although whether longsword or sword-and-buckler is better is up for debate. Travellers could often have a sword, but not full armour, and brigands tend to be inconsiderate swine who do not let you dress in armour before attacking. Most people would prefer not to travel in full armour if they did not really have to. Carrying a shield might be annoying too, and while you can wear it on a strap it might be a little difficult to have it ready on short notice. Meyer’s 1570 book seems to be almost sporting in nature. It covers lots of different weapons and might even be getting a little divorced from the battlefield context.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:The joke is everyone's dentistry sucked back then. In the Middle Ages, most people had decent teeth because sugar wasn't available to most people. Teeth really started to rot in the 18th century when regular people could afford sugar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
I was mulling over a couple armor-related questions. First, my rough understanding is that the Western/Central European standard was padded cloth and mail, with increasing incorporation of plate components beginning in the 13th century until the adoption of suits of plate in the 15th century. To what extent were other types like brigandine or lamellar used? Were they transitional forms, were they used for special purposes, were they more/less expensive than the more widespread mail/plate? How do their protective characteristics compare to mail and plate? From my limited reading it seems like both types were commonly used in Eastern Europe, Russia in particular, and lamellar was very popular farther afield in East and Southeast Asia. Second, were different kinds of armor preferred for very warm climates? From looking at Iranian and Mughal armor it looks like the same kind of thing; mail worn over a quilted coat, with some plate components (mirror armor). It seems like it would be impossibly hot considering average temperatures of 90-100 degrees in many areas during the summer. Were there alternative varieties of armor to avoid heat prostration? Or did they just avoid fighting when it was very hot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
So tell me about Iran in the Middle Ages. To what extent was Islamic Persia/Iran a dominant force in the caliphates? I've read later on after the Mongol invasions Iran lost out to the Ottomans and gradually weakened, why was that?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 18:21 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:So tell me about Iran in the Middle Ages. To what extent was Islamic Persia/Iran a dominant force in the caliphates? I've read later on after the Mongol invasions Iran lost out to the Ottomans and gradually weakened, why was that? So way back in the day the 'Persian' Empire and the Roman Empire (at this point, the Western half has fallen and is only now kinda getting its poo poo together, but the East has kept on trucking okay) are scrapping when out of nowhere a bunch of Arab tribes under a new Abrahamic spin off absolutely faceroll big chunks of the Roman's and the entirety of the Persian Empire within just a few years. Then, aside from a quick trip to Iberia, they go about sorting succession issues and have a few civil wars. At this point there is no 'Persia' per say, but the Abbasid (in a rather calculating way, it seems) use Shia partisans and the resentment of non-Arabic Muslims against the Umayyads, and proceed to mostly go back to assassinating Shia Imams, though they are a bit nicer to the non-Arabs under their rule. Again, no Persia as a polity but Persian intellectual traditions keep rolling along with the other Greeco-Arabo-Roman poo poo going on. Eventually the Abbasids cede more and more power to different military groups that nominally follow the caliph but really ran the show. Of these the Buyids and the Seljuks are the most famous. These were Turkish folks but they set up their main power base in Persia so you might call them a Persian Empire. Eventually some Seljuk vassals were powerful enough to take the title Shah, (the Khwarezm Empire) so you might call that a Persian Empire. Again you have a sort of Turkic military/ruling class, but lots of Persian intellectual traditions (and geography), with an Arabic religion thing going on, then the Mongols roll in and it's the same situation. Some of the most elaborate Shahnameh illuminations were made for Mongol rulers, for instance. Persia really gets 'restored' later though, with the Mongol states tearing each other to bits post-Timur an actual honest to god Persian (... kinda) Sufi/Shia leader comes and sets up the Twelver Shia Iran more or less as we know it. Their decline relative to the Ottomans was probably a bunch of things (tm), general imperial rot, trying to hold territory in Afghanistan, have more, angrier neighbors, being more easily bypassed via ocean trade, that sort of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 07:12
|
|