Real life weaponry.

[Sir Kenyth]

I've seen a couple threads on game weapons lead into discussions on real ones and I thought it might make an interesting topic of discussion. I saw a little discussion on pole weapons. Pole weapons were very popular and necessary for troops. They were cheaply made and easily used by even the most inept troops. They were not meant to be used as solitary dueling weapons. Pikes were the most common and the most useful. They're main purpose was holding off charging calvary and protecting the most awesome field weapon, the bow! Pikes are extremely long spears (9-10ft) with light peircing tips. Often times, the tips were simply the sharpened end of the stick, hardened by fire. Charging horses and horsemen were impaled on lines of these weapons as they had greater reach than the lance. The soldiers simply stood shoulder to shoulder and planted the butt of the pike into the ground. The bowmen would fire from behind the pikemen. Halberds were a spin off on the pike. Shorter and quicker, they were used when horses broke the pike line. A back up weapon of the bowmen. Halberds have all manner of protruding spikes and hooks meant to pull men from their horses or keep them at bay. Because they were shorter and had a bladed tip instead of a spike, they could be used to fight other foot troops in close quarters with some effectiveness. Weapons were designed for certain purposes. Pole weapons were primarily meant to be used by massed foot troops to counter heavy calvary. By far, the most feared weapons were bows. The english long bow followed by the composite short bows used from horse back by the Mongols. The Mongols were particularly devastating with their mounted archers, speed, and guerilla tactics. Ranged weapons always have, and always will, dominate the battlefield.

[Neb]

I beg to differ, ranged weapons will not necessarily ALWAYS dominate the battlefield as they are usually more or less useless in close combat, and once someone invents teleportation technology(If they ever do) then it would simply be a matter of equipping some people with close-combat weapons, which are usually not quite as useless as ranged weapons in close combat, and teleporting them within close-combat range of the people armed with ranged weapons.

If that ever happens then ranged weapons won't dominate the battlefield, or how about a very foggy battlefield? More chance of hitting friends than foes and opponents can easily get to the troops armed with ranged weapons without getting noticed under cover of the fog.

Or perhaps in a very dense jungle or forest? The trees would get in the way of the projectiles and those not armed with ranged weapons could then get close and attack their foes.

[Thoran]

Ranged weapons were an important component of the battlefield then as they are today, after all... all these standoff weapon systems we have today are just technologically enhanced ranged weapons.

However, their effectiveness could be mitigated by organized and disciplined troops. Shield formations (like the Romans utilized in the opening scene of Gladiator) could protect troops during their vulnerable movement to the skirmish line. Once engaged the soldier was close enough to the enemy to make bows ineffectual (unless the enemy chose to fire on his own troops... which certainly might have happened on occasion). Armor protected heavy cavalry until the advent of the crossbow (and during the middle ages... heavy cavalry meant nobility... and they rarely engaged the enemy until after the battle was already decided anyway), and speed protected light cavalry (somewhat).

I'm sure there were innumerable tactics for setting up your troops. On I was particularly impressed with was a first rank of troops with shield and short sword, and a second rank of spearmen that had range enough to engage the enemy from their relatively protected position.

I'm sure that arrange as you might though, once the battle was joined it all turned to chaos. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Wulfere]

Cool a thread I can relate to. I was in the service and trained on every weapon in the world. So what can I tell you? Not much more than you can get from the Library. It's that whole Classified info shtick.

Projectile weapons...Easy to use, the user is relatively effective after minimal training. Many of the modern submachine guns are basically nothing more than a bullet hose. The AK-47 for one example. The theory behind that being, "If you put anough lead into an area you will eventually get a hit." Its a rugged weapon and takes alot of punishment.
Dispite what the movies show a handgun is not truely effective past 50' for the majority of users. That and the fact that many times it takes multiple hits to affect the target.
Projectile weapons do get deflected by branches, leaves, twigs and brush. The heavier the projectile the less effect smaller obstructions have on the flight of said projectile. This is the case even with modern weapons.

Close Combat or Melee weapons require a good deal more training to be used effectively. They are much more difficult for soldiers to use and are limited by the users ability and training. They are highly useful in tight locations, but as before you have to have good training to use them with any skill and dependability. If you get into a knife fight, you will get cut, even if you are good. That increases the chance that you will be disabled.

The English Longbowmen had an effective range of 100 yards by some accounts. Having watched several shows on the weapons and armor available, that was darned significant. The bowman would hit a heavily armored man with arrowheads made from the same material of which the armor was made. Wrought-Iron breastplates took mutiple hits from wrought-iron arrow heads in the example from one show. While the hits were not lethal they did hurt the armored individual and after several hits slowed them down. The majority of the arrowheads broke off on impact and stayed wedged in the armor. What you then had on was a walking Iron Maiden for all intents.

[Aleksanr]

And the two handed sword was developed to brake up such formations of polearms, in a figure 8 swing

[Scholarcs]

To quote Cohen the barbarian; "Never enter an arse-kicking contest with a porcupine".

[Sir Kenyth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aleksanr:
And the two handed sword was developed to brake up such formations of polearms, in a figure 8 swing

---

The German Flamberge, right?

[Sir Kenyth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thoran:
Ranged weapons were an important component of the battlefield then as they are today, after all... all these standoff weapon systems we have today are just technologically enhanced ranged weapons.

However, their effectiveness could be mitigated by organized and disciplined troops. Shield formations (like the Romans utilized in the opening scene of Gladiator) could protect troops during their vulnerable movement to the skirmish line. Once engaged the soldier was close enough to the enemy to make bows ineffectual (unless the enemy chose to fire on his own troops... which certainly might have happened on occasion).

---

The turtle! Romans loved a front line with huge tower sheilds and short swords. The second rank was spears/pikes IIRC. Once again this weapon choice was mostly effective in massed formations.

[Sir Kenyth]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Neb:
I beg to differ, ranged weapons will not necessarily ALWAYS dominate the battlefield as they are usually more or less useless in close combat, and once someone invents teleportation technology(If they ever do) then it would simply be a matter of equipping some people with close-combat weapons, which are usually not quite as useless as ranged weapons in close combat, and teleporting them within close-combat range of the people armed with ranged weapons.

If that ever happens then ranged weapons won't dominate the battlefield, or how about a very foggy battlefield? More chance of hitting friends than foes and opponents can easily get to the troops armed with ranged weapons without getting noticed under cover of the fog.

Or perhaps in a very dense jungle or forest? The trees would get in the way of the projectiles and those not armed with ranged weapons could then get close and attack their foes.

---

Sorry Nebbers! You're talking to military experience on this one. The only melee weapons that even exist now are bayonet knives and you could spend the rest of your life trying to find a soldier that ever used one for something besides opening his rations. Firearms are just as effective in close combat as ranged. The bullet is at maximum velocity as soon as it leaves the barrel. Fog doesn't affect artillery, you never had to see your target to begin with. Map grid locacations and mathematics are all you need to nail targets. Guided weapons use IR signatures or laser guiding, so fog is no biggie there either. It doesn't help mind you, but it doesn't cripple either. No sir, as romantic as the sword is, it's fairly useless in modern combat.

[WOLFGIR]

Have to agree with the others here Neb. Most formations in early warfare were to protect your distance fighters, catapults, archers, slingers etc etc.

The advantage of being first to fire meant fewer to mop out later or simply keep a defender prone in position so sappers could undermine walls.

The idea with distance warfare is not to engage the enemy mano e mano but to use them behind the protection of your own fighters.

Warfare is pretty much different from one on one fighting. A good fighter as we see them from DnD campaigns, the sole walking armour guy could probably beat any single infantryman without problem, but take ten fighters vs ten infantry man and you have suddenly ten fighters vs a unit