Alternative Bioscanners and Other Stuff

[aspqrz]

Or to simply increase the moment arm, by concentrating the centre of gravity as close to the striking edge as possible.

That means light, strong, hard handles and all the weight concentrated in the head of the axe, for a heftier swing and a deeper impact.

Same goes for hammers and cudgels.

The "solution" was the Military Pick or Polearm versions thereof (name of which escape me at the moment).

Even with monofilament/vibroblades, you need mass to make any swing "bite" properly.

Phil

 

[aspqrz]

And I'm no physicist, but isn't speed more significant than mass in determining impact?

The problem was - and is - that speed is restricted by the human physio-
logy, a human being can only reach a certain speed with its actions.
Therefore the only way to increase the power of the impact was - and is -
to increase the mass of the weapon.

Assuming that weapons have reached that limit. I suspect the issue with medieval weapons was more that they reached a material strength limit - the force was greater than the material could bear, meaning that the weapon broke. Where this was the case, if you increased the mass and therefore the strength you overcame that problem, albeit at the loss of some speed. Presumably the weapons we see in museums are at the peak "cost-benefit" for speed vs. mass (with the added factor of the resistance of the material against which they were impacting).

Because of this, a lighter but stronger material would allow the user to use peak momentum without the fear of destroying their weapon - although this would suggest that the peak for a weapon would be around Tech 9, after which the only option would indeed to be go back to adding more mass.

Evidently not. Swords tended to break (naturally enough, even for the rather thickish Falchions [which were unbalanced and point heavyish to make them better armour penetrators ... and often rather blunt on the blade as it was mass, not sharpness, that worked as the penetration mechanism] and the like), and many medieval daggers were, evidently, cut down from broken swords.

Axes and Maces and similar weapons ... well, I guess the wooden handles might have broken, which is why later medieval versions have metal handles

Of course, what happened then is that gunpowder weapons made better armour impractical technologically and they were able to revert to wooden handles later, if they were needed at all, given that they were mostly armour piercers.

Phil

 

[aspqrz]

Actually, as I, personally and individually, understand it, axes and maces (1.) were actually fairly light and (2.) weren't so much about relying on their mass as much as relying on their mass being delivered to a specific point - as a matter of fact, very old Egyptian axes look very light...

You're actually both right and wrong.

Egyptian axes, mostly Bronze, and attached by frankly inadequate means to the haft, worked great against Neolithic and Bronze Age armour, and even, in the New Kingdom, when the Hyksos introduced iron, against Iron age armour (which was mostly still leather/cloth or, at best, bronze anyway) ... but against medieval iron armour? Forget it.

There are plain and fairly obvious structural and material differences between Egyptian and Medieval axes.

See ...

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/edgedweapons.htm

... for a visual of how pathetic the attachment was compared to ...

http://www.ancient-weapons.com/medieval-battle-axes.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Horseman's_axe.JPG

Also note that the traditional Egyptian semi-circular axe head would have been useless against iron armour ... even the scalloped design shown above would have been of limited value for the reasons noted.

However, you are sort of correct about delivering mass to a specific point ... that's why Military Picks :shock: were developed ... for use against Plate Armour ...

http://www.play.net/gs4/info/armory/twohanded.asp

Note also the Mattock, and, of course, there was the Warhammer :shock: and Flanged Maces as well ...

http://www.medieval-weaponry.co.uk/acatalog/blunt-weapons.html

Hope that helps somewhat.

Phil

 

[Dave Chase]

Ah, the slave expert speaks.

Well if you look at physics you would see that all of the above apply.

Point of impact with a small point with mass and energy behind it.

You can change any part of the forumla and get different results.

But what it really boiled down to was the individual using the weapon. No matter how good the material, edge/point or quality of the weapon, if the individual did not use it well, apply it to the point of best contact and still keep their head on, it matters not when talking about handheld melee type weapons.

Mas of a weapon is the easiest of the factors to change to add favor to your side. But at a cost of more enegry expended to accomplish the hit.

So, in the long run, skill of use of the item/weapon is the 1st factor in determining its effectiveness. Then would be your opponents skill of defensive/evasion/counter versus your attack.

From there it is only a matter of weapon of choice versus your opponents weapon/defense of choice.

Dave Chase

 

[aspqrz]

Ah, the slave expert speaks.

Ah, the smart alec speaks ...

Well if you look at physics you would see that all of the above apply.

Point of impact with a small point with mass and energy behind it.

You can change any part of the forumla and get different results.

Indeed you can, within limits.

And if you make the weapon lighter at higher TLs then you better note, believably, what parameters you have changed.

The weapons in question were not listed as vibroblades or monofilament weapons, so that means making the point of contact smaller ... in which case an axe stops being an axe and becomes indistinguishable from a military pick ...

Or you need to move it faster. Which, as others have noted, isn't possible as these weapons were optimised at low TLs for maximum human speed.

Or you can changed the length of the haft ... which would imply greater mass, rather than lesser ... as if any significant amount of the weapon's total mass is siphoned off onto the haft, it has to come from somewhere, which means the head becomes even lighter, and there is a line beyond which any improvement in leverage is more than reduced by loss of mass at point of contact.

You might be able to get better damage (or better penetration, more accurately) ayt higher TLs for the same mass, which is more or less what happened historically (loosely speaking), but you are unlikely to get what the original proposer suggested.

You might, very likely, get a more compact weapon, as you could use denser materials ... which may be what the original poster was thinking, but what he put down was plainly ... unlikely.

But what it really boiled down to was the individual using the weapon. No matter how good the material, edge/point or quality of the weapon, if the individual did not use it well, apply it to the point of best contact and still keep their head on, it matters not when talking about handheld melee type weapons.

All true ... but irrelevant to the point being made, and quite misleading.

A strawman argument in fact.

Mas of a weapon is the easiest of the factors to change to add favor to your side. But at a cost of more enegry expended to accomplish the hit.

And you favour your "side" by increasing the mass, not reducing it, or, at the very least, concentrating the same mass. As I and others have pointed out.

Please do keep up and on topic and watch out for all the straw, its flammable. :lol:

Phil

 

[Dave Chase]

EDIT
I apologize for posting non-Thread related things in this post.
I apologize to Phil for the PM commnets about an eariler subject, disagreemnet.
END OF EDIT
I guess a rapier never succeeded in injurying or killing anyone. NOPE. Never happened.


And mass taken off along with the weapon design changing slightly has increase the speed. And adding mass along with the weapon design changing slight will also effect the impact. That is why I did not say increase or decrease. If you add more mass you will need more enegry to move the weapon. If you lighten the weapon you will need more enegry to make the impact have the same effect as if it had the mass.


And since you are the new weapon Subject matter expert on these forums and you are fully aware of those factors, don't leave out all the great and wonderful details. You wouldnt want someone saying you are building strawmen now would you.

Also, please do not attempt to rewrite what I have written. I might have spelled a word incorrectly but the meaning was not mis-written.

And Skill of use, besides being able to use the weapon, is just as important to determine how effective said weapon will be.
I have seen true (weapon) experts who use a certain or same weapon have some difficulty using a similar but balanced different weapon to the same degree of precision until they have practiced with it for a while.

EDIT
Remove Personal pointed posts toward Phil. I apologize for posting non-related thread information.
END EDIT

Dave Chase

 

[aspqrz]

You know Phil, I did try to deal with you politely and even PM'ed you about our discussion but you decided to be the one who is to high and mighty to discuss things off line.

The only PM I am aware of is ... me ... and only if you leave out the "c" ...

And since you are Mr Expert on weapons

Another pile of straw ... your flammability rating is ... exceedingly high.

Don't move to Victoria.

I merely pointed out the flaw in the original posters suggested progression for ordinary axes etc. and that damage was largely based on mass, which is indisputable.

Hitting may, indeed, be based on skill ... but that's your pile of straw, and irrelevant to what was being discussed.

If you wish to discuss it, fine ... do so.

I didn't comment on skill in the first place because for the weapons in question with the problems mentioned, it was largely irrelevant.

It remains largely irrelevant to what I was talking about, so if you wish to make a pile of straw from it, leave me out of it.

you fully realize that not discussing skill and ability to use of said weapon is like talking about cooking over a camp fire with out any explaination on how hot, whether to use a flame or the coals and/or how to keep the fire going.

I realise no such thing.

What I do realise is that you want to pick an argument over your own strawman.

Not interested.

Argue with yourself.

Honestly, I don't mind the tit for tat in the preceived name calling.

Slave expert vs. smart alec. Preceived? Or perceived? The latter, I think.

But let me guess, you are so pissed off from our last session that you take my general comments about physics, which are easily looked by any who care to and call them stawman arguments.

No, I pointed out the simple ... and blindingly obvious ... problems with your ill thought out comments which, let me guess, you made because you were so p****d off that you perceive I ignored some message you claim you sent and which, as far as I am aware, I never received.

The problems I pointed out, in fact, were problems other posters had pointed out before me as well ... but, let me guess, you're so obsessed with some imagined slight you weren't interested in their factual observations.

Fine.

As we'd say locally, "Problem belongem you."

You are being stupid and insulting with that. I guess a rapier never succeeded in injurying or killing anyone. NOPE. Never happened.

Sonny, since I am not now, nor have I in this thread ever mentioned rapiers ... indeed, though you don't seem to grasp it, all the comments have been about axes, maces, picks and similar weapons ... this is a further example of your strawman complex.

Also, please do not attempt to rewrite what I have written. I might have spelled a word incorrectly but the meaning was not mis-written.

No. It was quite clear ... and clearly irrelevant.

Thine own mouth condemneth thee,

So, Phil, DS, lay off the personal insults with the strawman calling.

Tell you what, Davie DS, stop raising strawman irrelevancies and you'll stop seeing personal insults where there are none ... except in your own mind.

Feel free to pose more strawmen ... I am not responding. It's obvious you're simply dying to pick a fight ... not interested, sonny-jim.

Phil

 

[Ishmael]

all this talk of melee weapons has made me wonder...
What's more important for penetrating armor?
energy per unit impact area?
or
momentum per unit impact area...
I'm beginning to think momentum.
I've already experimented with momentum for damage, but maybe it should be used to determine penetration too. ( I should note that I prefer MT's separate pen and dam values )

Naturally, this should also apply to projectile weapons too. After all, a pick impacting a target isn't that much different than an arrow or bullet impacting a target; its just a mass of certain size and cross sectional area moving at a certain velocity.

I seriously doubt a rapier could reliably penetrate armor with a swing/slashing attack.
But I'm almost certain it could with a lunge or fleche attack where the momentum of the fencer's body is added in ( well, as much as his arm could support, anyways )
I believe rapiers were used mainly after the advent of the musket ( All for one and one for ALL! ) so there was already an armor piercer on the field besides the rapier.

 

[Dave Chase]

Phil, I PM'd you.

AND Drop the Strawman language, It is insulting. Period.

Dave Chase

 

[whtknght]

lets get back on subject guys

Alternative Bioscanners and Other Stuff

 

[aspqrz]

I seriously doubt a rapier could reliably penetrate armor with a swing/slashing attack.

But I'm almost certain it could with a lunge or fleche attack where the momentum of the fencer's body is added in ( well, as much as his arm could support, anyways )

I believe rapiers were used mainly after the advent of the musket ( All for one and one for ALL! ) so there was already an armor piercer on the field besides the rapier.

Rapiers were not intended to penetrate plate armour ... they were really not intended to penetrate any serious armour ... they only came into use in the 1600s ... they might have come up against the occasional curaiss but mostly against buff coats ... and, of course, they were precision weapons, so they'd be used to get the target where the armour wasn't.

A typical example would weigh 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) and have a relatively long and slender blade of 2.5 centimetres (0.98 in) or less in width, 1 metre (39 in) or more in length and ending in a sharply pointed tip -- Wikipedia

Seriously, try hitting a 1" blade (often not sharpened) against plate armour in a cutting motion like an axe! Especially when the thing's balanced for fencing, not to put the momentum/energy at the point of contact ... if it doesn't break, it'll bounce or slide off :shock:

Also note that the Rapier wasn't a military weapon, it was a civilian weapon, so its unlikely the circumstance would ever arise 8)

For the life of me I can't recall the name of the military swords used at the time, and I don't have my references handy (currently packed up preparatory to selling house and moving), but, possibly, the Saber?

Phil

 

[aspqrz]

Phil, I PM'd you.

AND Drop the Strawman language, It is insulting. Period.

So you say.

If the cap fits, sonny-jim.

Phil

 

[Anonymous]

I seriously doubt a rapier could reliably penetrate armor with a swing/slashing attack.

True rapiers were not used for slashing attacks, they were designed for
thrusting attacks only. A slashing attack against armor would either have
broken the blade or damaged the wrist of the fencer (in a rather painful
way).

This video shows some examples of rapier fencing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2lhgQKnBq4&feature=related

 

[rust]

Sorry, it ^^ was me, I forgot to log in.

As for a thrusting attack with a rapier against armour, I am almost cer-
tain that this would also have broken the blade or damaged the fencer's
wrist.
A rapier fighter would most probably have used his secondary weapon,
the main-gauche (a kind of dagger) for any attempt to get through ar-
mour - and only if there were no chance at all to circumvent the armour
by aiming for unarmoured spots (usually the face).

 

[Anonymous]

So, in the long run, skill of use of the item/weapon is the 1st factor in determining its effectiveness. Then would be your opponents skill of defensive/evasion/counter versus your attack.

Yes and no.

Weapons like the mace or the warhammer also were famous as extre-
mely dangerous "unskilled" weapons, for example when used by untrai-
ned peasants against well trained knights - with devastating results.

One did not really need much skill to hit someone with a mace, and the
force of the impact almost guaranteed that the hit would incapacitate
or even kill the opponent, armoured or not.

And the opponent did not have many options to use his own skills, be-
cause there are few ways to parry a mace. A sword, for example, would
just be pushed aside, and a parry with the shield would be likely to result
in a broken shield arm.

 

[rust]

^^ Sorry again - one day I will remember to log in ...

 

[Ishmael]

Rapiers were not intended to penetrate plate armour ... they were really not intended to penetrate any serious armour ... they only came into use in the 1600s ... they might have come up against the occasional curaiss but mostly against buff coats ... and, of course, they were precision weapons, so they'd be used to get the target where the armour wasn't.

Rapiers began evolving in the mid 1500's and were refined over the next 150 years. They were never intended to go against targets that were more heavily armored than thick padding really; historical texts indicate that it could be stopped by fine mail which was often worn under cloaks just for that purpose, They lost the sharp cutting edge over time in the 1600's and the cut was still an acceptable attack for distraction and harassment as late as the mid-1600's, but was never considered damaging enough to be a main attack. There was a limit on how sharp a blade could be because sharper edges meant thinner edges which meant a weaker weapon which would have defeated the original purpose of the blade; thrusting attacks. Test-cuts on fresh meat indicate that only shallow cuts could be made unless a draw cut was accomplished which sliced deeper.

But this misses the entire 'point' of my comment.
In general, what is more important for penetration of armor? weapon energy/impact area? or weapon momentum/impact area?
I wonder the thrusting weapon's penetration is caused in large part by the addition momentum from the fencer's body in a lunge or fleche as opposed to merely the energy the fencer puts into the attack directly with only the arm..

A typical example would weigh 1 kilogram (2.2 lb) and have a relatively long and slender blade of 2.5 centimetres (0.98 in) or less in width, 1 metre (39 in) or more in length and ending in a sharply pointed tip -- Wikipedia

correct
In fact the term Rapier may have originated from the French "la rapiere" which was mocking of any excessively thin and long sword.

For the life of me I can't recall the name of the military swords used at the time, and I don't have my references handy (currently packed up preparatory to selling house and moving), but, possibly, the Saber?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-sword

All this is interesting distraction.
It does not address the question I posted for consideration concerning the relationship between weapon momentum and weapon penetration in the general sense. An opinion about this, that covers all impact weapons, including projectiles, and not just a class of particular melee weapon is requested.

 

[rust]

I wonder the thrusting weapon's penetration is caused in large part by the addition momentum from the fencer's body in a lunge or fleche as opposed to merely the energy the fencer puts into the attack directly with only the arm..

It would be somewhat uncommon to put one's body weight behind an at-
tack with a rapier or similar thrusting weapon, because one would risk
to lose the agility necessary to avoid being hit by a counterattack (and
remember, a rapier fencer usually has two weapons to avoid). Therefo-
re most attacks with a rapier only have the strength of the arm behind
them.

 

[Ishmael]

I have to rely on my own experience as an epee fencer and unless the body remains motionless as during a simple 'extend' as opposed to a lunge or fleche where the body is moving in the direction of the attack, the body's momentum will be part of the attack.
This might be analogous to comparing a boxer's "jab" to his "roundhouse punch".
I know, Traveller combat treats such a distinction as an abstract that is accounted for in damage tables, eh?

The actual weapon doesn't matter.
It could be cavalry charge against a set pike-wall or a pike thrown at a horse.
or instead of a sword thrust, it might be a sabot round impacting the target.

Never mind, I'll just modify my weapon spreadsheet to try momentum based pen.
I just wondered about it despite that no rules I've seen so far use it.
------------------------------
In a lunge, the impetus of the attack comes from the trailing leg.
In a fleche, the impetus of the attack comes off the front leg ( resulting in what looks like a 'running attack' )

 

[Dave Chase]

For a game material reference mainly for firearms/long arms. You might consider looking at 3G, Guns, Guns, Guns.

They deal with and provide forumals for the type of information that you are considering.

I do not know of any melee type game system design that does the same level of detail. There might be one, and if so, I am just not aware of it.

Dave Chase