test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Weapons Information for roleplayers (and general knowledge)
cybersoldier1981
Posts: 2,501 Arc User
So, I was discussing with Lafury about a weapons-related thread where I discuss the misconceptions about various weaponry, as well as open the floor up for input and other discussion regarding them. Mind you, this is not limited to 'munitions', or even contemporary weaponry- I highly encourage archaic, theoretical, and science fiction weaponry discussions. Overall, I hope this will benefit someone in some way.
So first, I'll start with munitions. I do research firearms, and I've been shooting since I was a child- I got my first rifle when I was 8 years old (A single-shot deuce-deuce, FTW). I think I'm going to address a lot of 'myths' about them first.
1- Revolvers are obsolete. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Revolvers have two major advantages over autoloader handguns. They're ridiculously reliable, to the point where I recommend one for personal defense (A 357 Magnum is the proven man-stopper round). This is mostly due to the simplicity of their design- which makes maintenance or replacing parts quite easy. Additionally, they are capable of using bigger rounds with more powder in the casing- for example, take a look at the Smith and Wesson .500 magnum Bear Defense Pistol. Yeah, Yogi- keep walkin', this Pic-a-nic basket is MINE. Now, don't get it twisted- autoloaders have the advantage of a higher round capacity, but in reality- if you need more than 5 or 6 big-bore rounds, you're already using the wrong type of weapon for the situation (or you suck at shooting).
Note for roleplayers: Want a way around the 'reload time'? Consider pre-packed cylinders that can be swapped like a magazine, perhaps made of inexpensive materials in case they are 'dropped'.
2- The bigger the bullet, the more effective the round. This is another misconception. While the idea of a larger round would make you think 'more damage', larger rounds without adequate powder behind the projectile tend to 'drop'. The weight of even a .45 makes it a pain, and there are countless complaints about the inaccuracy of 1911-models (though some have sworn by them, and state it's a 'user malfunction'). Additionally, larger rounds can actually be stopped by thick clothing, as there are several cases of people in motorcycle jackets being shot in the chest and surviving with nothing more than a fractured rib or sternum. What you should remember is that velocity of a round is just as important to the lethality, if not more. The FN Five-seveN is by far one of my favorite handguns, and I swear by it (despite it being a pain to get ammo). While the size of the 'little rifle round' in this pistol would make one think that it isn't powerful enough to stop a man, what many folks fail to realize is that longer, thinner rounds tend to not just 'zip' through a body- they like to go in, change direction, and shred tissue and tear through vital organs and leave behind nasty cavitation where they've tumbled. In combat, it's common to find someone who has been shot in the hip with a 5.56mm rifle round with an exit wound in their neck (In Vietnam, the M16A1 was called 'Black Death' by Viet Cong). So remember that a balance between size and speed is crucial in autoloader pistols, SMG's/PDW's, and rifles.
Note for roleplayers: Want a big bullet with a lot of power behind it- and still keep the 'autoloader' concept? Look into perhaps having a fictional 'Automag' concept weapon.
3- Desert Eagles are badass. No, they aren't. The only reason I'd ever accept one as a gift, is because I could find some idiot to pay $2000.00 for it, and I'd go buy 3 better handguns, or maybe a couple of rifles. First of all, I have a problem when a handgun weighs as much as my sporting rifle (nearly 9 pounds fully loaded, just over an M-4's 8 pounds). Additionally, there's a problem with gas-operated weapons. While there are many of these, the cleaning of such a weapon is a pain in the rear. Enough dust or dirt, and God forbid- mud, the weapon is jamming and useless- and it takes nearly a complete tear-down of the weapon to get it functioning again. Desert Eagles would be a nice 'collector's piece', but for a day-to-day weapon they're garbage. And any military or paramilitary professional will tell you that they're a waste of space and overall dead weight.
Note for roleplayers: Like the shape of the Desert Eagle, but not the reality? Perhaps it's a 'different' pistol, weighted down with a barrel shroud or lower-receiver addition to help with recoil from 'dual wielding' them Wild West style.
4-Fully automatic is more effective. No, no, no. God no. It isn't. Fully automatic fire is used for a specific purpose. Here, let me tell you a little secret- the media, and the uninformed, like to throw around the word 'assault rifle'. The truth is, if it doesn't have an automatic or burst fire selection, it's not an assault weapon. The reason why, is because assault weapons are designed for the burst/automatic capability- a platoon moves to a position, and the guys with automatic weapons create suppression fire so that the guys shooting in semi-automatic (one shot per trigger squeeze) can accurately shoot the enemy and not get shot while they're trying to do this- the definition of 'assault' in military-ese. Essentially, what automatic weapons are for? Throwing a stream of lead at someone so they take cover or get pinned down. So the truth is, you have to ask yourself- if you couldn't kill the guy with one well-aimed shot- what makes you think the 2-5 rounds afterward that aren't aimed are gonna do anything? Now, of course there are 'circumstances' where spraying an entire area is the purpose, and then- by all means, make a mess and don't look at me when you didn't hit anything. Also, I'm not going to help you when your barrel goes red-hot, warps, and cooks off the rounds in your magazine (a problem with the full-auto M16A1's in Vietnam, hence the smaller magazine issued to many troops). Regular machine guns, like the M249 SAW, the M-60, or M240 circumvent this cooling issue by swapping barrels out after 200 rounds (give or take, depends on SOP).
Note for roleplayers: In fiction, sometimes there are some monsters or things that need significant 'chunks' shot out of them, and it might be best to dump a full mag into their stupid face and neck and chest areas. To get around heating issues, perhaps the barrel is made of some fictional metal that works as a super-heat sink (Questionite, perhaps?). So, sometimes for fiction full-auto makes sense, but not 'shooting regular dudes'.
5- Dual-weilding is completely useless... right? Well, in a realistic situation, even with someone with years of shooting experience like myself- there's never going to be a situation where shooting two pistols at the same time will do me any damned good. Ideally, the best reason to have two pistols is so you can switch without reloading. However, there are Wild West Show trick shooters who've made a living dual-wielding pistols with surprising accuracy and effectiveness. This takes years of practice, and a lot of reflexive muscle memory, and even then might not be 'ideal' for a gunfight. Additionally, the only reason someone with this kind of skill would use two handguns is to engage multiple targets at once- which, is kinda hard unless you're snapping off shots at one guy's general area while trying to accurately shoot the other dude. I suppose what I can say, is that in all fairness... it could work.
Note for roleplayers: Dude, it's a superhero setting- of course you know how to do Wild West dual-wielding, it's totally cool. After all, a hero finds himself outnumbered and it's probably a good thing. Personally, I play as a cyborg with the capability to have an independent targeting system to engage someone outside of his line of sight while he actively focuses on another target. And besides, it looks cool. Additionally, maybe you're a master of gunfighting and swordsmanship or martial arts or obscene one-handed gestures- in which case, you could be holstering one handgun while you draw the other and do whatever it is you do with the other hand seamlessly... which is pretty impressive still.
(I'll post more later, I'd like to open it up for discussion).
So first, I'll start with munitions. I do research firearms, and I've been shooting since I was a child- I got my first rifle when I was 8 years old (A single-shot deuce-deuce, FTW). I think I'm going to address a lot of 'myths' about them first.
1- Revolvers are obsolete. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Revolvers have two major advantages over autoloader handguns. They're ridiculously reliable, to the point where I recommend one for personal defense (A 357 Magnum is the proven man-stopper round). This is mostly due to the simplicity of their design- which makes maintenance or replacing parts quite easy. Additionally, they are capable of using bigger rounds with more powder in the casing- for example, take a look at the Smith and Wesson .500 magnum Bear Defense Pistol. Yeah, Yogi- keep walkin', this Pic-a-nic basket is MINE. Now, don't get it twisted- autoloaders have the advantage of a higher round capacity, but in reality- if you need more than 5 or 6 big-bore rounds, you're already using the wrong type of weapon for the situation (or you suck at shooting).
Note for roleplayers: Want a way around the 'reload time'? Consider pre-packed cylinders that can be swapped like a magazine, perhaps made of inexpensive materials in case they are 'dropped'.
2- The bigger the bullet, the more effective the round. This is another misconception. While the idea of a larger round would make you think 'more damage', larger rounds without adequate powder behind the projectile tend to 'drop'. The weight of even a .45 makes it a pain, and there are countless complaints about the inaccuracy of 1911-models (though some have sworn by them, and state it's a 'user malfunction'). Additionally, larger rounds can actually be stopped by thick clothing, as there are several cases of people in motorcycle jackets being shot in the chest and surviving with nothing more than a fractured rib or sternum. What you should remember is that velocity of a round is just as important to the lethality, if not more. The FN Five-seveN is by far one of my favorite handguns, and I swear by it (despite it being a pain to get ammo). While the size of the 'little rifle round' in this pistol would make one think that it isn't powerful enough to stop a man, what many folks fail to realize is that longer, thinner rounds tend to not just 'zip' through a body- they like to go in, change direction, and shred tissue and tear through vital organs and leave behind nasty cavitation where they've tumbled. In combat, it's common to find someone who has been shot in the hip with a 5.56mm rifle round with an exit wound in their neck (In Vietnam, the M16A1 was called 'Black Death' by Viet Cong). So remember that a balance between size and speed is crucial in autoloader pistols, SMG's/PDW's, and rifles.
Note for roleplayers: Want a big bullet with a lot of power behind it- and still keep the 'autoloader' concept? Look into perhaps having a fictional 'Automag' concept weapon.
3- Desert Eagles are badass. No, they aren't. The only reason I'd ever accept one as a gift, is because I could find some idiot to pay $2000.00 for it, and I'd go buy 3 better handguns, or maybe a couple of rifles. First of all, I have a problem when a handgun weighs as much as my sporting rifle (nearly 9 pounds fully loaded, just over an M-4's 8 pounds). Additionally, there's a problem with gas-operated weapons. While there are many of these, the cleaning of such a weapon is a pain in the rear. Enough dust or dirt, and God forbid- mud, the weapon is jamming and useless- and it takes nearly a complete tear-down of the weapon to get it functioning again. Desert Eagles would be a nice 'collector's piece', but for a day-to-day weapon they're garbage. And any military or paramilitary professional will tell you that they're a waste of space and overall dead weight.
Note for roleplayers: Like the shape of the Desert Eagle, but not the reality? Perhaps it's a 'different' pistol, weighted down with a barrel shroud or lower-receiver addition to help with recoil from 'dual wielding' them Wild West style.
4-Fully automatic is more effective. No, no, no. God no. It isn't. Fully automatic fire is used for a specific purpose. Here, let me tell you a little secret- the media, and the uninformed, like to throw around the word 'assault rifle'. The truth is, if it doesn't have an automatic or burst fire selection, it's not an assault weapon. The reason why, is because assault weapons are designed for the burst/automatic capability- a platoon moves to a position, and the guys with automatic weapons create suppression fire so that the guys shooting in semi-automatic (one shot per trigger squeeze) can accurately shoot the enemy and not get shot while they're trying to do this- the definition of 'assault' in military-ese. Essentially, what automatic weapons are for? Throwing a stream of lead at someone so they take cover or get pinned down. So the truth is, you have to ask yourself- if you couldn't kill the guy with one well-aimed shot- what makes you think the 2-5 rounds afterward that aren't aimed are gonna do anything? Now, of course there are 'circumstances' where spraying an entire area is the purpose, and then- by all means, make a mess and don't look at me when you didn't hit anything. Also, I'm not going to help you when your barrel goes red-hot, warps, and cooks off the rounds in your magazine (a problem with the full-auto M16A1's in Vietnam, hence the smaller magazine issued to many troops). Regular machine guns, like the M249 SAW, the M-60, or M240 circumvent this cooling issue by swapping barrels out after 200 rounds (give or take, depends on SOP).
Note for roleplayers: In fiction, sometimes there are some monsters or things that need significant 'chunks' shot out of them, and it might be best to dump a full mag into their stupid face and neck and chest areas. To get around heating issues, perhaps the barrel is made of some fictional metal that works as a super-heat sink (Questionite, perhaps?). So, sometimes for fiction full-auto makes sense, but not 'shooting regular dudes'.
5- Dual-weilding is completely useless... right? Well, in a realistic situation, even with someone with years of shooting experience like myself- there's never going to be a situation where shooting two pistols at the same time will do me any damned good. Ideally, the best reason to have two pistols is so you can switch without reloading. However, there are Wild West Show trick shooters who've made a living dual-wielding pistols with surprising accuracy and effectiveness. This takes years of practice, and a lot of reflexive muscle memory, and even then might not be 'ideal' for a gunfight. Additionally, the only reason someone with this kind of skill would use two handguns is to engage multiple targets at once- which, is kinda hard unless you're snapping off shots at one guy's general area while trying to accurately shoot the other dude. I suppose what I can say, is that in all fairness... it could work.
Note for roleplayers: Dude, it's a superhero setting- of course you know how to do Wild West dual-wielding, it's totally cool. After all, a hero finds himself outnumbered and it's probably a good thing. Personally, I play as a cyborg with the capability to have an independent targeting system to engage someone outside of his line of sight while he actively focuses on another target. And besides, it looks cool. Additionally, maybe you're a master of gunfighting and swordsmanship or martial arts or obscene one-handed gestures- in which case, you could be holstering one handgun while you draw the other and do whatever it is you do with the other hand seamlessly... which is pretty impressive still.
(I'll post more later, I'd like to open it up for discussion).
Post edited by cybersoldier1981 on
0
Comments
Agree almost completely. Thanks especially for point 3, this has driven me crazy for some time now.
My only point of contention would be the weight of the .45 acp/ sa .45 colt. I like the weight, and in either case I think the size out the weapon would give an antagonist pause due too appearance, and might end a standoff peacefully. Flip side, while I'm not weak, the .357 I owned for a time hurt the hell out of my wrist, so eventually just I loaded it with .38 rounds. At close range vs a person, I think it would do the job. That being said seeing what a .357 round can do...yeah agreed there.
That aside, thanks for the post and this was a fun in game discussion, so I hope more people chime in and take part.
It was a .22 revolver that almost killed Pres. Reagan, and did wind up crippling Press Secretary James Brady.
So yeah, let's not write off the lethality of the smaller rounds...
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
6- The best way to be deadly in hand-to-hand combat is to be a master of as many martial arts possible. Well, this one is a bit tricky. I'm by no means a martial arts expert, but I know enough to tell you this- those MMA fighters everyone likes to eyeroll because they aren't 'real' martial artists? Actually know the science behind fighting. You see, a lot of martial arts are very similar. Some are designed to be offensive, some defensive, some to be 'grappling' arts, some to be striking arts, and some to lower your blood pressure when you're ancient like jonsills (Tai Chi). The thing is, it takes some research. Ideally, you would want to learn martial arts for different purposes if you wanted to be an omni-capable hand-to-hand fighter with a broad spectrum- not necessarily study an obscene amount of martial arts, but study a few that are completely different in purpose that flow together. Now, things to consider about martial arts? Not everyone should be able to learn every different kind, because it's not practical. There's a reason they don't teach Marines Capoeira or Jeet Kun Do, and that's because for the situations they'd be in, the gear they'd wear, and things of that nature- those martial arts just aren't practical at all. Truthfully, everyone is different- and some martial arts might just be a waste of time for someone, where another guy would be able to use it to frightening effectiveness.
Note to roleplayers: Do some research on different martial arts, and try to dig into what their 'focus' is. If you can't think of 10 different martial arts with a completely different focus... well, welcome to the world of Superheroes- you can totally say 'this is an alien/extradimensional/futuristic/forbidden/ancient forgotten martial art. You're in no way limited to the real world (And it gives your character something cool to pass onto a promising pupil some day). For extra interesting fun, perhaps your martial art was designed specifically for someone with your powers and regular folks and most superheroes could never learn it.
7- I probably shouldn't make up my own gun, right? Well, there's a thing about firearms. Every one of them was an idea on a drafting table at some point. I've heard peoples' reason why you shouldn't do this, and I can tell you what it is: If something breaks and needs replaced, you wouldn't be able to get the part from another weapon. Now, that sounds smart, but let me tell you... cannibalizing firearms is not only an 'armorer's sin', it's also kind of dangerous. Every weapon, each individual one, is its own special little snowflake. The way the weapons are stored, the frequency they've been fired, the conditions they've been exposed to, the amount of maintenance they've had... all of these little things have an effect on the delicate little 'guts' of a weapon. So, swapping parts out is a big no-no anyway. Usually, several pieces of the internal mechanism that function together are swapped out at once. So, ideally? It's only a bit more expensive to 'make your own'. What you should keep in mind is that using exotic or 'unique' calibers tends to be impractical, as it can be impossible to acquire additional rounds in the field/streets (this is why NATO and Warsaw Pact weapons are all of the same caliber).
Note to Roleplayers: Just keep in mind certain weapons have similar functions, maybe model it off that- and decide why your weapon is 'unique' and a creation of your own (extensive performance tests to customize it to your capabilities and body type is reason enough). There's no reason a highly-capable munitions hero wouldn't have his own firearm that he designed himself. After all, heroes don't shop off the shelf.
8- Why use a bow when I can use a gun? Good quesiton. Certainly, bullets tend to do a lot more traumatic tissue damage than an arrow. Now, we can sit here and argue the concept of 'projectiles used as a delivery system' with bullets and arrows, but there's a distinct advantage with a bow. For one, arrows are silent. Now, even a rifle can be fitted with a silencer, but there's still a problem... little known fact- within range of a weapon, the bullets tend to 'snap' when they fly past. This is because the round is breaking the sound barrier. Of course, this can be worked around with subsonic rounds... except those are really only good for shooting someone across the room, and have been known to bounce off a skull (they are used for executions, mostly). The arrow won't have that problem, and to say they don't do much damage... well, there are some nasty broadheads that shred a path through tissue like a buzz saw.
http://thumbs2.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/pict/111293742053_1.jpg
http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/bowhunterfrompast/Posted%20pics/016.jpg
http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv341/bowhunterfrompast/Posted%20pics/012-Copy.jpg
Ouch. I'll take the bullet any day.
Note to Roleplayers: You're a superhero- who says your bow isn't powerful enough to launch an arrow hard enough to shred through a tank and suck the crew out the exit hole in a bloody mess? Maybe it's got an advanced magnetic rail to push the arrow at absurd speeds, or perhaps it's a magical relic used to strike down dragons. Hell, what if your super-strength and questionite-alloy string cable gives you an edge with velocity? Not to mention, arrows can be packed with all kinds of absurd devices.
Which is hilarious, when one considers that it is exactly the way how British and French were making their ball and cap revolvers. The only reason why it was scrapped was because XIX century machining wasn't precise enough to make every drum and revolver of the same type interchargeable. Now we're in XXI century and this solution is again a valid one. :biggrin:
There is one reason why I'd hesitate to use rounds like Five-seven or 7,62 Tokarev as a vigilante, in an environment with possible bystanders. Actually, the same reason why Soviets scrapped Tokarevs after WWII and in police use. A chance for bullet going through the target and hitting anyone else, or ricochetting.
Tokarev was deemed a very accurate weapon, but its penetration was sometimes making problems. What if my character fires such gun at the target not wearing any body armor, and the distance isn't large enough for bullet losing enough velocity?
Go with a lower grain count and get a thinner recoil spring for the upper receiver/buffer.
Okay, this has always perplexed me a bit: It does seem small though, like almost impractically small. The .223 in my mind, looks like an icepick. If it doesn't hit anything really dense (i.e. bone), isn't it just gonna slice right through it's target?
I've never fired a weapon chambered for that caliber, and thus never held an M-16 or M-4 like you two have, so I'll just put it this way: doesn't the size seem just a bit impractical? What am I missing here?
edit: I understand the different types of ammunition, ie. fmj vs a penetrator tip/hollowpoint job etc etc etc, it's just that the round really looks "thin", if that makes any sense.
the round is long. Not thick, but long.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/GP90.jpg
That should give some perspective. Now for the scary part...
It's spinning absurdly fast, you already know this. Now... look at the '**** end' of the projectile. It's going to drop. Then it will kick into a tumble. Now, it's tumbling and spinning.
When it hits meat? The 'spin' is going to 'drill' that right through, sorta... and it's going to go whichever direction it's facing... and it's been mashed and frayed.
I shuddered a bit.
The reason why to not use arrows is actually their total ineffectiveness against body armor.
Bows have limited velocity which can't be increased above some point, unless user (in superhero setting) has superhuman strength. It is because bow is only a spring and can't store more energy than user actually has. IT doesn't add to strength no matter what. It merely stores user strength for later.
Now, the worst part about bows and crossbows is ballistic of the projectile. Basically...
Any armor plating not stuck close to your body makes you IMMUNE for archery and crossbows. Examples are large shieds like the Roman scutum, or the Medieval pavise.
Arrow hits the plate, pierces it...
And stays in it either with arrows shaft broken, or intact. Arrow shaft alone makes it impossible for arrow to pass through the hole, and if it's broken and only arrowhead goes forward, it loses large part of velocity. End entire stability. Which sucks, because unlike bullets, arrowheads have to hit target at certain angle to actually cut it.
There was no way of piercing armor with arrow in an effective manner, unless armor was really thin, or (in the superhero setting) arrow carries things like explosives and whatnot.
On top of that, arrows and bolts tend to reflect and glance on sloped armor. Even more than bullets do.
Since arrows and bolts are reliant more on cutting target, than punching in a more "blunt" way as bullets do, they tend to deflect terribly on every hard, sloped surface.
Actually, archery in Medieval and Atiquity periods was used more as a crowd control or morale breaker, to pin enemy troops down and make them hiding behind the shields, but real casualties inflicted by projectiles were low. It was either infantry or cavalry who had to actually kill the enemy. Even at battles actually won by archery, like Carrhae or Crecy.
The last concern is accuracy. Strong wind? It is now much, much lower. Rain? The same. Heavy snow? Yup, the same.
So yeah, compared to firearms, they are terribly outdated.
Well, may be better for non-lethal heroes, because of all trick arrows.
On the bright side:
Bows can break bones and deliver blunt force. What people are using now in sports and reeneactments, are weaker toys. In historical times they'd be considered valid only for hunting. Not for warfare, and certainly not against armored opponents. Not even majority of reenenactors carry real warbows, since this kind of weapon required years of training. Their longbows and recurves are weaker copies.
Though of course there are reenactors with real warbows. They're just very, very rare.
But what was actually considered a warbow, was a monster. Draw was well above 100 lbs. This kind of weapon was capable to break ribs and limbs even if armor wasn't pierced. Headshots could be lethal almost everytime.
Though shields still were very effectve agaist it.
Modern bows made for sporting and target practice aren't that powerful, but hero is very likely to use custom made bow that is comparable in draw.
A point about archers:
Fantasy made people believe that archery is all about being fast, agile and dextreous, because nimble elf stereotype.
Except it is entriely fantasy bull****.
Determining traits for a real world archer are strength and stamina (and not being blind, obviously). What is needed to use bows in an effective manner is strength to actually draw this monster and keep it drawn long enough to target, and stamina to do it repeatedly.
In short - effective archers are more orcs or dwarves, than elves, to put it into land of fantasy stereotypes.
Not to mention, I hunt wild hogs. You really, really want to kill it if you hit it. An angry wild hog is a very dangerous animal (hence the backup pistol I carry).
Truth is, going to 'war' with a bow is a bad idea (even thought General Washington was considering it for militia and some people thing for the time, it would have worked). But for a superhero? Well, some suspension of disbelief... a splash of advanced materials, and you've got a valid idea that in the superhero/science fiction/fantasy setting could be played out as pretty lethal.
Also, in China's border with Pakistan, they're using crossbows. The East Turkestan Islamic Movement is spilling across the border and introducing China to suicide bombing and improvised explosives. The primary advantage of using crossbows instead of guns against these attacks is that they allow police to shoot and kill anyone carrying an explosive while lessening the risk of detonation.
Not to mention, even if tipped with a target head? Arrows make good non-lethal 'ouch' projectiles if you want to skewer a thug's leg without killing him.
For obvious reason can't be used in reenactment, but for practical archery? Makes things much easier.
A few points about blades, armor and other melee things used for hurting other people:
1 - Chainmail is NOT lighter than platemail.
Not even if you stick only with chainmail shirt. Comparable platemail cuirass with platemail arm protectors will be lighter.
Full chainmail suit, including leg protectors along with chainmail hood, like these worn by crusader knights, was actually heavier and more limiting than later platemail suits. It was much hotter inside and it offered much worse ventilation for body. On top of that, platemail could be worn just over your regular clothing, but chainmail couldn't. It required padding underneath.
And padding was only more bulk and weight added.
Chainmail was just obsolete or cheaper form of armor used when platemail was either too expensive, too hard to find, too difficult to made, or not yet invented.
Fantasy games want you believe that platemail=heavy, and chainmail=light/medium.
Nope. It doesn't work that way.
The same about scalemail, lamellar armor, or any other form of body armor developed before platemail armor. The only reasons why they were used along with platemails were economy and availability. Metal armor was ungodly expensive in times where everything had to be made by hand, never machined.
2 - Armor does NOT limit movement or makes you less agile.
It only makes you tired faster.
Nobody, never, in the whole history of mankind was dumb enough to issue melee combatants with any kind of body protection limiting their movement, because in melee movement IS protection. Body armor can protect warrior from slashing and piercing blows, but no armor worn over human body was able to provide protection from blunt weapons reliant on inertia and concussive force.
Thus, a knight wearing limiting suit would be killed by opponents with things like wooden clubs, because he couldn't parry, dodge, or strike back. Nobody ever was that stupid.
Knights, cataphracts and samurais were perfectly capable to roll, jump, crouch, and do whatever was necessary while wearing their tin suits.
The disadvantage of wearing heavy armor (aside of it being ungodly expensive , thus not available for everyone) was poor ventilation inside. It made warrior tired and armor could not be worn over prolonged periods of time. But it never reduced mobility.
Armor does not make dodging any harder. If it did, nobody would use it.
In RP: a knight-like character who is fast and agile does not godmode even in a realistic setting and with no superpowers.
3 - Leather and padded armor is NOT light armor.
Unless it is a DnD book.
To actually offer any kind of protection, leather or cotton armor had to be glued, padded and thick. In the end it was neither skin-tight, nor light. It could be as bulky and stiff as modern heavier bulletproof vest. And they aren't 'light' at all.
Leather is heavy, Leather that was glued, boiled in oil and studded, is even heavier.
On the flipside, a well made sheet of steel can be thinner, lighter, and still offers better protection.
The reason for using leather as an armor material was, again, economy and availability. Whoever was able to afford it, switched to metal armor.
Skin-tight rogue suits, as are often shown in fantasy, would be no better than plain clothes.
Good explanation. I'm gonna have a nightmare or 2 after visualizing what you described, but I get the concept now.
I just figure Captain Americlown uses a nonlethal round, similar in concept to the "icer" rounds developed by Leo Fitz and Gemma Simmons in Agents of SHIELD.
And Broadhead isn't using off-the-shelf archery equipment; his is all designed and built by his mentor, the retired Inventor hero once known as HandyMan. Special gadgets and whatnot, you know.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
1 - The more powerful it is, the more accurate (thus safe for bystanders) it will be.
A 100 lbs bow will be always more accurate than 50 lbs bow. Since draw equals velocity, and the more velocity has arrow, the less it is susceptible to weather conditions.
And arrows are terribly susceptible to weather, so you'd want to use bow as powerful as you can draw. Not even because of penetration and power, merely for its accuracy.
2 - There is no difference in power between bows of different shape.
If they are of the same draw. A draw is a draw. 100lbs bow will yield the same velocity and power no matter whether it is a longbow, or a recurve one.
The reason for using recurves was their compact size that enabled using them from horseback and in tight spaces.
And something about swords:
1 - Longsword vs shortsword.
There is no difference in lethality of both designs. Actually, most shortswords can be even more lethal, if employed properly.
That's because most shortsword designs were made for stabbing and piercing, which results in much more serious injuries than slashing (stabbing blade goes much, much more easily through skin, fat tissue and muscles and causes more internal bleeding).
The difference between both designs is more in line: weapon designed to fight in an open space and from horseback, versus weapon designed to fight in a very close distance, often in crowds and with no place to take a good swing.
Arms reach was important in swordplay. People who are taller and have longer arms are at advantage. People with longer blades are also at advantage. They can hit with less risk of retaliation, if facing opponents with shorter arm reach. They can strike first.
Longsword wins.
But only if there is a space for it...
If both opponents are very close, standing next to other, and one has a shortsword, and the second one has a longsword, then the man with longsword (or katana) is essentially unarmed.
Can't even take a swing.
He must either go halfswording (if he's trained and his blade is suited for halfswording, but you can't halfsword with katanas and not even every longsword is made for this technique), or he can do what German landsknechts did - drop the longer blade and draw your secondary weapon (a longknife or a shortsword).
Now shortsword wins.
Having said that, shortswords are probably poor design for a hero who doesn't want to employ any lethal force. You can't hit with blunt side of the blade as efficiently as with longswords, because they are simply lighter and have less inertia.
They're perfect for assassination, though. They're faster, for an example.
2 - Swords used for actual fighting aren't balanced as are fencing swords.
Fencing swords are balanced to have center of mass as close to the hilt as possible, to improve their handling. But it means their blade has less inertia. They do less damage.
Actual fighting blades were either balanced towards the tip of the blade, like machettes, or their center of mass was few inches before the hilt. It was done to improve their inertia and damage delivered.
Doesn't matter whether it is a katana, or a longsword. A fighting blade is not a very subtle weapon, it is made for chopping off pieces of other people, after all. A people, who could be armored. The more damage it could deliver the better. Even if at the expense of handling.
And since swords tend to weight rougly 2lbs, sometimes more, and it's all hard metal with considerable inertia, well... Even hitting people with blunt blades can be fatal. Especially unarmored people.
Modern kenjutsu and fencing sports are far cry from training that was used for fighting people. They are based on it, they have many common elements, but they aren't the same. And bokens, or fencing swords, aren't very close to real swords or katanas.
3 - Katanas:
Katana isn't actually the epitome of quickness and subtlety. It weights more than longsword and it has very thick blade. It is also used with both hands, most of the time. Actually, you could thrust or take swing with a longsword much faster than it could be done with katana.
Also, katana thickness makes it a rather substandard weapon for cutting through armor. This sword is very unlikely to do any harm to anyone wearing full suit of steel plate, unless it is done by blunt force. Since katanas are well above 2lbs in weight, they can deliver some punch.
There is also no difference in sharpness between katanas or longswords. Cutting off limbs of unlucky unarmored people was equally doable with both weapons.
On the bright side - katana is heavy, so blow will be dangerous even without cutting through the armor. They are also terribly efficient against any lightly armored, or unarmored opponents. They have longer lifespan than European swords, who were considered only tools and just discarded if they were no longer in good condition.
4 - Longswords:
European swords can be hit or miss. They're equally possible to be made of iron, or of steel. Some of them can be as meticulously forged as katanas, while others are just meat choppers. There is no hard rule about their quality, really.
A steel sword, finely crafted, could equal katana blade.
Longswords are lighter, faster and usually perfect for use with one hand only. They have rather thin blades, often designed for puncturing armor, they are more elastic and not as brittle as katanas.
On the downside, historical swords were losing their edge rater fast. Intensively used sword could last for maybe three, four months. More if it was of exceptional quality or not very used. After this time, it was just discarded and another blade was bought.
On the other hand, with longswords, bastard swords, or claymores, you can go halfswording - a technique that can be employed only with straight blade made for thrusting moves.
Halfswording is a way of fighting where warrior was wielding his blade with both hands, second hand usually placed mid-length of the blade. To be usable for halfswordig, one side of the blade had to be either not sharpened on its full length, or knight had to use armored gloves. Or both. For pretty obvious reason.
Halfswording also required a very good training. Well, in a superhero setting it is pretty obvious that heroes ARE well trained, better than ordinary people.
With this technique knight could:
- shorten effective length of his blade, to fight in tight spaces and with opponents standing really close (thus no need for carrying other, shorter blade)
- thrust with both hands, turning sword into a kind of bayonet or a very short spear, a very effective technique for puncturing armor
- hit with pummel or hilt, turning sword into a kind of hammer, most often delivering blows to opponents head (thus disabling opponent even if he was wearing helmet, because blunt force)
Some moves in halfswording are like tonfa moves, some are like bayonet moves. A very versatile way of fighting for knights who were very well trained.
5 - Modern replicas:
In reality, modern replicas of swords and katanas are of much, much higher quality than were their historical prototypes.
Even if forging technique is the same, they are made from better steel, they have much longer lifespan and are much sharper.
Unless a real historical sword wielded by hero is magical, or other kind of special artifact, or said hero has other powers to turn his blade indestructible, no actual historical artifact will survive clash with its modern replica. It will break, or lose its blade. Period.
Think about it. Replicas aren't cheap. They cost hundreds of dollars. No reenactor will pay this amount for replica that is actually as short-lived as its prototype.
You will not find readily available ancient swords made of bronze, or migration period swords made of iron. It's all steel, even if historical example was made of other materials.
Unless it is a display piece.
Not to mention, such blade would be substandard to any later historical blade, like, for example - late XIX/early XX century cavalry sabres, who were machined in factories. Even if it is a katana*.
Most of the time your hero would roll with replica, than actual stuff, unless said stuff is magical (or was improved in any other superpowered way).
*) - There are war stories from WWII about Japanese officers cutting gun barrels with their katanas. They may be even true, except... They weren't katanas. What was issued to officers of the Imperial Japanese army was a modern, factory machined, mass produced sword made with XX century technology. It was merely shaped to look like katana.
What's the story with revolver speed-loaders? The ones that supposedly inject a full load of shells directly into the cylinder.
They're a bit hard to find (IRL), and still take a bit more effort than dropping a whole 'throwaway' cylinder would. Just a thought, though. Could still be done.
1 - So, how effective is actually archery against armor?
Well, against the armor of the same level of technological advancement? Not so much.
It means, if you have steel arrowhead and your opponent has steel armor, he may not be hurt very badly, if hurt at all. If you have some kind of supertech titanium arrows and your opponent has armor made from comparable materials, it will be the same.
But there is always thing of technological advancement!
Steel arrowhead is very likely to penetrate bronze armor, for an example.
Material hardness is pretty important factor in engineering.
On the other hand, if your arrowheads are made of iron and this bugger in front of you wears steel plate, you may don't bother with shooting at all, unless your bow has really strong draw (in the latter case it may deliver enough blunt force to hurt this guy anyway).
Also, head is a very vulnerable part of the body, no matter if helmet was pierced, or not.
The only things making arrow shooting the guy hard no matter of which material is the arrowhead made, are shields.
That's because going through shield strips arrow of kinetic energy and it stays stuck there. Much like fibers in bulletproof vests are dispersing kinetic energy of bullets.
The main offender is arrow shaft. It usually produces more friction and is the part that causes arrow to stuck in obstacles.
Of course it was possible to shoot through the shield at the point blank distance with very strong bows, but such instances were rare. Such rare, that it was never a factor in development of armor - it dit not made into statistics.
So, in general? Shields are the bane of the archery and crossbows.
1a - Trick arrows.
Soft felt practice arow, blunt arrows... They were known even in past ages. And they're even easier to make with modern day technology, let alone in comic book setting with comic book impossible science.
The reason why special forces are using crossbows and bows in real life is not only them weapons not causing any risk of explosions and being very quiet, but also their ability to carry whatever kind od projectile you can fit into arrowhead.
Just think what kind of things you can fit into arrow with comic book science...
For example - have problems with robots and very heavy power armors? Or vehicles? Well, your arrowheads can be miniaturised version of a HEAT missile:
That's actually doable even with real world technology, let alone in comic book universe. And arrows have perfect kind of ballistic for delivering HEAT projectiles.
1b - The best, albeit gruesome, part about arrow shafts.
They are actually the most damaging part of arrow, if it made its way into the flesh.
Really.
Even if arrow was broken, a small part of its shaft remains. It enlarges the wound, it is stuck into muscles and every movement makes it even worse. If target moves, it moves as well, rubbing against the wound and tearing the flesh. It causes a lot of internal bleeding. Animals and people struck with arrows, if they don't just lay down, are basically finishing themselves with every move made. The same applies to the crossbow bolts (and is even worse, since their shafts tends to be shorter and thicker, they may not break at all...).
What makes things even more gruesome? See... Taking off your body armor will also hurt you, if part of this shaft is still stuck into padding or plate.
Yuck...
There was only one way to avoid hurting the wounded. Make him stay down no matter what. Then pull the arrow straight forward, avoiding vital organs, since arrow moving forward just cuts the tissue, instead of tearing it if you'll try to pull it in the opposite direction. Then take off his armor once the shaft is no longer stuck in it. Then continue until the arrow made it's way forward and out of the body.
Or find the surgeon skilled enough to cut the wound and remove the arrow. That part was rather hard in the past ages.
Wounds inflicted by archery are tricky even today. Let alone in past ages...
1c - Modern bows vs traditional ones.
In general, you don't want to use bows made of wood, bone and sinew and arrows made of bronze/iron/steel, wood and feather.
Unless your equipment is some kind of epic artifact that is indestructible because magic, or whatever.
Reenactors are using this kind of bows for historical accuracy, but otherwise these weapons are inferior to modern technology in every respect.
That's not the case of accuracy. Well made bow will be accurate no matter of the material. The problem is, that traditional bows can warp in bad weather, the same about wooden shaft arrows. Modern bow made of fibers can has its string just detached and be stored. Historical bow... Not so much. You have to be careful how it is stored. If the place isn't too humid. If it isn't too dry. If your bow do not rot, do not warp. You have to avoid using your bow in rain, if it is possible. The lifespan of this weapon also isn't terrific.
You can't just clean it, wrap it in oiled rags and store it, like you could do with the blade, or the gun.
The same applies to the crossbows, unless they are all-metal. But historical crossbows with non-metal composite bows have this weakness.
In short, can't cheat centuries of technical advancement. If the weapon is just mundane wooden bow, the modern equivalent is always a better choice.
Ok, but let's say you LOVE the look. You do not want high-tech things, but classy longbow, or a Turkish recurve.
Not a problem at all. There are modern replicas available, with no fancy targeting things or string triggers. They look just like traditional bows - except they are all made of modern materials, down to their strings.
Those are also used by reenactors. They offer classic look, but modern lifespan and performance.
2 - Bulletproof vests:
Bulletproof vests are working because they're made of grains or fibers that are increasing friction of bullets going through them. The faster bulet moves, the more. Eventually it loses enough kinetic energy to stop.
That's why real world vests aren't terribly effective against microcalibers and teflon coated bullets. Such projectiles don't produce much friction and tends to slip through the vest.
Now, it isn't exactly effective against knives and sharp objects, like fragments from explosives. These little buggers tends to just cut through the fibers. The same applies to arrows.
Even if your arrowhead is iron, but it is sharpened, it will go through the bulletproof vest. The vest alone will offer no more protection than thick clothing.
There is, however, a caveat.
Purely military vests, these more bulky (and impossible to conceal under clothing), models issued to soldiers in the field, aren't built only from pockets of fibers. They have plates underneath, to protect soldiers from sharp fragments. This may or may not stop arrows, depends of what kind of material was used for arrowhead, if it is sharp enough and harder than material used for plates.
But more sleeker bulletproof vests , like these worn under clothing, will offer little protection from arrows.
3 - Chainmail:
The popular misconception is, that chainmail is ineffective against arrows and thin, pointy things made for piercing. That's actually another fantasy stereotype. In reality, chainmail protects from those just fine. There are records about the crusader knights who were under heavy volleys of archery, arrows stuck in their coats of mail made them looking like pincushions, and it did nothing to them. Not even slowed their advances.
The reason is, because arrow always produces some friction going through chainmail links, and then is stuck in the padding. This is actually two-layers deep level of protection, chainmail and padding working together. First, arrow loses some impact on chainmail, then the rest is dispersed by padding. And since chainmails are never worn without padding underneath... Go figure. Especially felt padding was useful for stopping arrows.
The same applies to pointy daggers and swords used for piercing chainmails. Or even lances. Test were made in XX century and it was proved that level of strength required for thrusting through suit of chainmail is not available for majority of people. At least not with one hand.
Pointy objects is not where chainmail fails.
Blunt force is the best way of harming someone who's wearing chainmail suit.
Coat of chain is elastic and offers little protection from things like hammers or maces. But it shines against piercing and slashing.
But of course, because of being not very effective against the blunt force, a very strong bow (or worse, crossbow) could disable knight without piercing his fancy suit. The main reason why crossbows were feared. Who cares if your coat of chain was pierced or not, if you have probably half of your ribs broken? You can't fight anyway.
4 - Platemail:
Platemail is radical improvement over chainmail in basically every field. Up to the introduction of firearms, well made suit of platemail was effective to the point when there was no longer any need of carrying a shield. Even swords were no longer effective.
Still was susceptible to blunt force, but much, much less than any form of elastic armor.
Nearly nothing, short of puncturing it, or going for the head, or using very strong blunt force, was really reliable method.
Against crossbow bolts and arrows it is was great because historical platemails were all sleek, hard suits made of sloped surfaces. It was one big moving projectile deflector. Like this one:
Note how pretty much every surface on this thing is curved or sloped.
To make things worse, knight wearing it likely wasn't an idiot. He was very likely advancing crouching and covering visor with hand.
This kind of armor could deflect arrows even if they were made of better material than armor plates. It's just this unfortunate tendency of arrows for glancing off of hard, sloped surfaces.
It was possible, and it happened, to shoot through the plate. If archer was very strong, or arrow hit under ideal angle, or was shoot at very close range. But such instances were rare to the point, when it was never any factor in development of armor.
At Crecy and Agincourt archery did good job at dispersing French formation, killing horses under knights, and inflicting chaos.
But casualties from arrows weren't that high. French knights were finished by English dismounted knights and men-at-arms. Archery alone could not win the battle.
Oh, and since we are at the platemail.
I'd like to thank you Cryptic for delivering actual functional platemail model to us. I was pleasantly surprised that, within limitations of the CO costume creator, our Shining Knight set is actually accurate depiction of platemail. Kudos once more.
Most of fantasy games has jokes instead of believably looking armor.
This is the first mmo where my character can wear something that actually looks like it was providing some level of protection.
5 - Chainmail mechanics:
Yes, this thing actually has working mechanics! Protection from chainmail is actually more complicated, than just putting a lot of tiny metal rings on the harm way.
See, chainmails are made of interlaced rings that are working together. When you punch into chainmail, these links are gathering together under pressure, effectively thickening layer of metal under advancing blow. Smart, isn't it?
This is why usually cutting through chainmail can't be done easily, even though this kind of armor seems to be frail and easy to cut.
The best chainmails ever made, usually of Persian or Indian origin, had tiny links that looked almost like fabric, with loose ends of wires forming links bolted together. Because links were tiny, even more of them were gathering under the blow.
As a superhero in a comic book setting I'd seriously consider chainmail made of advanced materials, like titanium or whatever kind of indestructium is available. If links were small enough (nano-engineering perhaps?), this thing could even stop bullets.
Though with this level of miniaturisation it probably wouldn't look like chainmail. More like some kind of matte, slightly metallic fabric.
6 - Dual wielding swords:
Is actually perfectly doable and reasonable way of fighting, though it required an insane level of training and coordination.
There was class of Roman gladiators who were fighting with two short blades.
Usually dual wield was done with one blade used for attacking, and one used for parrying. As difficult as it was, it had one big advantage - most of swordsmen are either right-handed, or left-handed. They aren't really prepared for opponents who can strike from either side.
The principle of using two swords was similar to Phillippinian martial arts performed with two sticks. Another historical example are Chinese hook swords.
Either way it was very close combat art, hence use of relatively short weapons.
But this is perfecty realistic and don't listen to the fun police people who tell you that dual wield is a fantasy thing.
What may not be entirely realistic, is use of two long blades, like two longswords or two katanas at once.
That's because when using such blades it is good to have second hand free for strengthening grip (with katana), or halfswording (with longsword).
But it's not always the rule.
There were Reinassance swordsmen who were using two rapiers at once. It was hard, required legendary skills, but it was doable and practical. It was also an overkill, if done right.
On top of that, using katana/sword/rapier in your main hand and wakizashi/maingauche/knive in the second (and these parrying weapons were oftentimes almost as long as shortswords, well, wakizashi IS, technically, a shortsword) also was done quite often, right?
There is nothing unrealistic in dual wielding blades, it is only very hard to exectute in a proper way. But superheroes are supposed to be legendary swordsmen, so...
7 - Rapiers:
Rapiers are an overkill. This is probably the most murderous fencing weapon ever designed.
Tops katana, tops longsword.
Thing with rapiers is their reach. Rapier fencing was like dancing, done with changing steps, tempo, and maneuvering around the opponent only to deliver thrusts to his vital areas.
Rapier user had terrible advantage of reach over any other swordsman.
It required terrible level of expertise, but he could stab someone armed with longsword or katana before that other guy could even take a swing.
To make things worse, rapiers are heavy weapons made for thrusting, so they deliver the worst possible kind of wounds. Deep stabs in chest or belly. It was possible to aim on the arm pits and arteries. Terrific way of killing someone. Most of duels done with rapiers ended lethal for the one of the combatants. Some ended fatal for both of them.
For superhero, rapier can has the one advantage. It may not have the cutting edge, but it is a heavy blade, not really lighter than longsword. You can strike with blunt side, it was done in the past to only humiliate or disable less skilled opponents, you can throw weapon off of opponent hand, or you can pummel him with rapier's elaborate, enclosed hilt.
Rapiers were heavy, but still much more maneuvreable than swords or katanas.
They could be very lethal, but unlike less elaborate swords - they did not have to.
The disadvantage of rapier is pretty much the same as longsword or katana, except worse.
It is a duelling weapon, it requires a lot of space for performing steps and techniques.
For this very reason, rapiers were rarely employed in battles. In pitched battles, the nobility was rather using pallashes or late types of swords.
If I were making a fencing superhero, I'd probably give him a rapier.
Why? Let's say your character is non-powered, badass normal hero. Of course with legendary skill in fencing, because heroes are always the best combatants around.
With this level of skill, rapier offers you a one great thing - you have weapon with adjustable level of lethality.
You are skilled enough to either disable the guy, or stab him. You have the choice, your blade is that precise.
And if your rapier is made of some kind of comic-booky indestructium, you can even try thrusts through advanced body armor.
Now you can don the black mask, a hat and a cape and call yourself Zorro. :biggrin:
Hawkeye in 2012's Avengers movie was using arrowheads that seemed to pack the explosive force of RPGs, as well as a heat-generating arrowhead that completely melted alien alloy in seconds. Tasers as well. But for the most part he fired broadhead arrows, with enough accuracy to consistently penetrate the gaps in Chitauri armor. None of that is real-world possible, but it illustrates how a comic-book super-archer can be one of the most tactically useful combatants in the field.
The difference with super swordfighters is that they can also be super-strong. Cateran (Champions Villains Vol. 3: Solo Villains) wields a claymore when necessary, which isn't often because she's strong enough to lift a tank. She could probably swing one in each hand with no effort, heck, even throw the darn thing with accuracy. The New 52 incarnation of Wonder Woman often uses a sword, and with her strength can cleave an armored vehicle in one stroke. With miraculous alloys or enchantment, comic-book swords can withstand being swung or thrust with that much force.
Especially since claymore is suited to do so. :biggrin:
And considering that she's realy skilled, using only one sword gives her actually more opportunities to do the tricks. Let's say she was facing a villain or a hero clad in some kind of indestructium hard enough to make just slashing through him impossible...
With her superstrength she could pummel him into submission. :biggrin:
I also wouldn't be surprised if Ironclad knew advanced sword techniques.
Or Black Paladin, for that matter...
Actually, the latter would made me **** scared if my hero was just a badass normal guy with the sword and that's even if the villain wasn't using any powers. Considering his possible level of training with swords.
It sometimes creates right kind of dramatics, to make opponents looking really skilled.
I did once one jerkass thing during Earthdawn campaign, when player characters went not very heroic and started bullying the local population. I gave them a local guard captain, a non-adept swordfighter, but then gave him all techniques needed, along with statistics to back it up. Few broken noses and a big humiliation later their characters were no longer so cocky...
In a universe where super heroes exist, the only thing they need is the will, and the universe itself will make a way for them, that is how you explain things like heroes time and again being left for dead, dealt glancing blows that should have been easily lethal, or manage to just endure a mortal blow and carry through to win the day in spite of all odds.
While I certainly can appreciate topics about weapons especially when used by a vigilante, its actually entirely pointless to discuss when in connection to this game and its universe. In the end whatever weapon you wield the only thing that determines who wins in a vs match in a comic is the popularity of the character, and in this games pvp the build and ability to meta game mechanics to stack the odds in their favor time and again.
This is a huge oxymoron. If it's a weapon, it can be lethal. What most people are trying to say is 'less than lethal' weapons. Rubber bullets, tazers, and even tear gas has killed people in the past. These weapons/munitions aren't even down to an exact science.
To put tazers into perspective, let me explain something: It is easier for me to get a handgun and a license to carry that handgun concealed than it would be for me to get a tazer and do the same. But, a gun can be lethal as hell, right? The thing is- guns put big holes in people and cause damage to tissue and organs, something doctors can deal with if it doesn't kill the guy (many shootings aren't fatal in the US). But a tazer can do horrible, horrible things to a person that can ruin them for life. Neurological damage, for one- there are cases of people who've been tazed brain-dead. It takes extensive training for police to be allowed to carry a tazer- and some are allowed to carry handguns and no tazer. Additionally, just using one requires massive paperwork and the potential court case could be a heavy blow to the department, so they're supposed to be used sparingly.
Rubber bullets have been known to flat-out kill people just like regular bullets. Ideally, they're supposed to be fired at the ground to make them bounce at the target- but even then, in cases all around the world people have either been severely wounded (some losing eyes and otherwise being permanently disfigured) and then again there are flat-out deaths, like the former US Marine protesting in the Occupy demonstrations that was hit in the skull. Again, to put it into perspective: If these things were a 'safe' alternative to regular bullets, cops and civilians would be buying them off the shelf in droves... except that is most certainly not the case. The truth is, an extreme high-velocity bouncy-ball is a horrifying thing to gamble with.
Tear gas is kind of a funny one. It's not as effective as you think. I'm not badass, but I've sat in a gas chamber with no mask and yelled joking insults at my peers and subordinates. Mind you, this was in an enclosed environment for maximum effect. Out in the open, it's used to scatter- not 'stop' crowds. Even then, a riled up group of demonstrators can pick the canister up and throw it right back. Additionally, some people with pulmonary disorders have had severe reactions to this, and there are some cases where the tear gas has caused permanent blindness, loss of smell or taste, and severe skin reactions that leave permanent scars. Additionally, have a look at the Waco incident. All in all, it works... but in no way a Superhero would ever need to use it.
Tranquilizers? Another one to put into perspective- if 'tranquilizer darts' were a safe alternative to lethal munitions, then why aren't cops and civilians using them? After all, a living suspect is more valuable than a dead one- hey, we should even be using them in wars so we can capture the bad guys and question them! Well, there's a thing... tranquilizers? Just using one on an animal is a huge risk. There are plenty of cases where animals have been tranquilized and have flat-out died. Most of the time, in such cases, it's a matter of 'this is better than shooting you in the face with a 12-gauge, hopefully you'll be all right', and such things are life-and-death. It's important to remember that people are all different, and medicine hits some folks a lot harder than others. Plus, anything that's designed to take you from conscious active state to insta-snooze in a second from a projectile doesn't exist- and if it did, it's absurdly dangerous. You're balancing the 'knockout juice' on hitting someone anywhere- but what it if hits a major vein and pumps into the heart instantly? Dead or perma-coma. So, it's not a safe alternative unless Shamu goes bonkers again... and then we're weighing a human life against an animal, and chances are veterinarians have gone to great lengths to balance that one projectile properly, not how a crime fighter would ever be able to do.
Just straight knock-out? I've seen this before. Someone playing a superhero thinks that just because they head-punch a guy and knock him out cold, that it's 'better'. Except... that's not how it works. A concussion is nothing to joke with, as usually it creates a traumatic brain injury. Depending on the severity, it can permanently ruin a person's life and cause psychological and physiological problems for the rest of their days. And even then, this is just a normal clobbering- knocking someone out 'cold'? That's not normal. That is very, very bad. Chances are, you've caused severe damage to their brain. He might need severe medical attention. A bit of a steep price for a common street thug that robbed a store, Captain Douchebag. Good luck facing his family who'll be faced with the decision to keep him on life support or pulling the plug.
Except now you've come into conflict with another player for example. And you're throwing this 'it's all in the writer' fiat out. This is where you're expecting someone else to set aside their knowledge, experience, and studies in favor of 'popular'.
Prepare to have every misconception about your equipment pointed to like doggy piddle and have your nose rubbed in it.
Suspension of disbelief only works so far, and a good writer knows full well the extent of this suspension. If you roleplay in a way where you expect everyone to simply throw out common sense in favor of Saturday Morning Logic- be prepared to whittle down your list of potential adversaries and teammates.
Do they have to be a jerk about it? No. But if someone's selected a certain weapon/tactic for a certain reason, and that reason makes absolutely perfect sense- then you saying 'LOL no because comic books' will be you pretty much saying 'F**k your concept'. Ideally, what you would want to do if someone was using something in a 'wrong' way, you'd privately mention it to them and share knowledge.
All I'm saying is that 'ignorance of the thing doesn't get a pass because it's comic-book land'.
Agreed.
Informations like that can be useful for characters background and sometimes for writers, but that's all.
Well, in PnP games can be used to tailor things mechanically with rules. GM can always rewrite NPCs as he fancies.
Otherwise there is no point to needlessly bog down the game in realism, unless said game is explicitly made for it, be it PnP or video game.
I know for sure that I'd give a wide berth to any ultrarealistic video game made as mmo or crpg, it would be no fun for me, to the point of pure masochism.
I like mildly realistic background explaining completely non-realistic abilities of my characters for my private comfort, I don't necessarily like to harmstring everything with realism.
For an example - I can use this info to explain in-character how mooks kicked by my characters in CO aren't murdered even if they were stabbed with rapiers a few times.
Provided that anyone asks me in RP and I care enough for explaining.
Otherwise? It's just my private fluff.
Thankfully, real advances in body armor are significantly better than plain kevlar / ceramic plates.
Video: Kevlar treated with STF (VS puncture weapons)
MIT and DuPont are both developing liquid body armor. (STF is one of those.)
CNT armor is far above and beyond Kevlar. (Nerdy research article from 2007.) Basically, not only can the armor take repeated impact without being damaged, it takes far fewer layers to provide significantly better protection. That means 3mm should be able to stop a 5.56mm Nato round (~1800j). And this is old research.
MIT and Rice University are developing paper thin nanomaterials that can stop bullets. They developed a microbullet to help them test material strengths.
Nanospheres being developed by the Weizmann Institute of Science and Tel Aviv University are significantly stronger than Kevlar while also being lighter.
Blended skin that is also bullet proof research: video
Why hand wave when reality is this OP?
[at]riviania Member since Aug 2009
Just because your suit is made of metal...
... it doesn't mean you can't take a swim...
while wearing it! :biggrin:
Though that's probably the most risky test ever made.
And kinda pointless...
Probably the most over-romanticized piece of history that Hollywood has completely taken to a new level of absurdity. It also doesn't help that Japanese Folklore and Japanese History often mix and mingle more than they should. So, here's a few pieces of information for you:
Ninja swords were never a thing. If I ninja did use a sword, he just used a regular katana like every household with a military age male would have. The idea of using a weapon unique to the profession was counter-productive. Ninjas were spies and insurgents, they went out of their way to be completely covert during their inactive hours. Most of the time, their weapons were basic farming tools like the kama. The most well-known ninja in history? Used a spear.
Ninjas didn't wear black. Why? Because black doesn't occur naturally except in very rare circumstances. Most likely, they wore blue, brown, and green. The black 'ninja costume' is a stage-acting costume, where in plays someone in such a costume would stand against a black background and move things around for 'special effects'.
Kunai, shuriken, and throwing knives are not deadly. Seriously, the worst that could happen is you might lose an eye... but even then, they aren't that bad. Kunai were prying tools and were often used to chip apart brick. Shuriken were pretty much a mild 'ouch' if you got hit with one, it was more a distraction tool than a weapon. Throwing knives are roughly the same. Sure, you could coat it in poison- but you'd need ot ensure you didn't cut yourself, the conditions were ideal for the poison coating, and using a dart would have been easier. Additionally, these weapons? Historians aren't even sure that these and other 'ninja' or 'martial arts' things were ever truly 'a thing'. A throwing knife, even in the hands of a trained user, is little more than a 'hobby toy'- just a more dangerous dart and something to play with. Now, throwing a tomahawk or hatchet might get you better results, but the problem with throwing a weapon? You're throwing a weapon. At the enemy. And if it doesn't work, the enemy has your weapon.
It's a convention of the genre to have these miraculous fictional materials -- adamantium, vibranium, inertron, and so on -- which are "indestructible" or have other extraordinary qualities. It's kind of a superpowers arms race. When you have the likes of Superman, the Hulk, or Thor, who can tear through any real-world material, including the ones you mentioned, like tissue paper, you have to step up defenses they're pitted against into "handwave" territory, because their power level is also handwaved. There are times the plot requires them to be faced with something they can't easily smash. For example, Ultron wouldn't be nearly as formidable a foe for the entire team of Avengers without his adamantium chassis.
You'd be surprised how dangerous military darts could be. Unlike throwing knives, they were weighted and optimalised for throwing.
An example of dart - Roman plumbata, a rather sadistic weapon.
The thing may look harmless and silly, but people were actually killed with it.
See the barbs on its head?
Now imagine this thing got into human body.
It's just that thrown weapons were the most effective when employed by large bodies of troops throwing them all at once and then advancing, so there was not enough time to pick it and throw back.
It looks "harmless and silly" because it's a lawn dart.
And those were banned because taking the barbs off didn't make them any less injurious to anybody unfortunate enough to be in range of Uncle Bob's wayward arm after he's had one too many PBRs at the family 4th of July cookout.
They're not there in the beginning, but when your story ends / Gonna last with you longer than your friends
They also had tendency to work in the same manner if stuck in human body.
If it sounds gruesome, it is probably because it was.
The only shield of this time that could, probably, withstand this kind of treatment was Greek aspis, because it was oak plated with metal and it was sloped. But aspis was worn resting on chest and shoulder, very close to the body. In the case pilum managed to penetrate the shield anyway, it could end with its spearhead fixed through both shield and ribcage.
There should be, of course, a factor of body armor between shield and the body, but not every Greek hoplyte could afford anything more than a shield, a helmet, and a spear. And maybe a sword.
Though actual reenactments about pilums vs aspis are inconsistent. Sometimes it fails to penetrate hoplite shield, and sometimes it goes through.
Considering that this thing has very similar shape, is weighted in the same way and even the throwing technique is similar, I'm not suprised at all.
In regards to your last point (and I know I'm gonna catch flak here) this is why I think boxers under cruiseweight weight classes need headgear and glove size adjustments. I'm gonna date myself here, but I watched live on television as Jimmy Vargas was beaten to death by one of the Ruelas (sp?) brothers. Repetitive small strikes can be worse.
Also, if the guy being clobbered isn't wearing a mouthguard, and you deliver an uppercut that knocks the guy out and his tounge gets in the way you've potentially just maimed someone.
just had to chuck my 2 bits in
*impressed with how much you guys know, jeesh
Like the thing about the speed-loading for revolvers, that'd be handy for my alt El Vaquero. Or all the stuff about archery for my cyborg archer.
and cyber since you mentioned the effects of knockouts and such, I recall a scene in the comic series Astro City, one of my favorite series of all time. It was in the Dark Ages volume, chronicling the troubled 70's period of the city, where a hero named Street Angel clobbered a bar full of tough guys with rings made of high impact ceramics with a steel core. His partner at the time later points out how despite his 'non lethal' tactics, he never did ensure the guys he beat up get medical attention, which causes him some turmoil.
Thank you very much! Look, that's all I am trying to do. It really makes things more interesting when you can more easily visualize what you're working with- I know that there are a few people online that have never seen a firearm up close due to where they live, their age, or personal lifestyle; but have specifically asked me about firearms. I'm more than happy to share what I know.
I used to play a tabletop game called Exalted, and while not technically 'Cyborgs', I played in a group of Alchemical Exalts (more like 'Magitech Cyborgs/Androids'... it's complicated). One of our group was an Archer, and he went to great lengths to describe his Power-Bow. He even had a cool 'quiver' that was a reloading mechanism built into the bow and collapsible arrows. Even cooler, he explained how the bow could 'fold' and fit into a case that he wore on his hip.
Also, if anyone has any questions, I'll address them.
Up next: Why caseless ammunition is a terrible idea... unless you have a workaround.
One thing that people forget with rockets is concussion often not where you would expect it from. Like if you fired a rocket launcher out of a small room window you would probably kill yourself in the backblast as well. But I am no professional just something that may be useful to point out.
As for the armour thing I thought that knights used to wear chainmail and padding under plate armour now i see that whilst maybe possible for someone super strong anyone else would just either pass out in about five minutes or be rather useless in fighting.
So yes very interesting thread.
Maybe I could add a little on laser weapons from what I have seen folks mess with in science projects that most folks probably know, like lasers don't need to be visible they can be invisible and still kill you. They would have to be very very powerful though to burn through armour. If they were in colour you would probably be dead before you saw them as a bit like bullets by the time you hear the bang you are already dead, by the time you see the light you have already been hit. Also lasers don't need to make a sound and actually would be a perfect silent take down weapon if you can find the power to make them useful as a weapon to cut or burn through armour.
Thanks for the thread guys its already been helpful to me.
2- Most advanced missiles don't 'hit' the target, the computer or fuse device inside is set using something like a rangefinder, it is launched, and explodes at a certain distance. So 'sidestepping' a rocket means you'll still get blowed up.
3- You don't jump away from an explosion, or you'll die. You drop flat. Explosions on the ground burst up and out. Air detonations are ideal for missiles and explosives.
4- White phosphorous is scary, scary stuff- and it's not really 'fire' like a fuel explosive, it's an absurdly sick chemical ignition that works underwater. It's against the Geneva Convention to use it against personnel.
5- Of note, it's also against the Geneva Convention to use directed energy weapons against people.
6- No matter how 'super tough' you are, when struck with a bullet you will probably get knocked on your butt unless you have a lot of weight or some other form of kinetic energy disruption (this stuff exists IRL, too).
7- There are actually rules in the Geneva Convention on how many cutting/piercing edges a knife, sword, or some similar weapon may have. For some nice shudders, look up some of the homemade Trench Knives during WW1.
8- Fighting while holding a knife underhanded is stupid. To see how this works; grab a stick, pencil, or some similar long object. Hold it 'underanded' and tilt the 'blade' toward you . See how far it goes? Now, hold it blade-up and turn it to you. See the difference? The exception to this is weapons like the karambit- its hawkbill and the fighting techniques around it call for it to be used underhanded.
9- Switchblades, 'Butterfly knives' (balisangs), and spring-loaded Out-the-front knives are not good for sustained, or even over-aggressive fighting. They are, however, a load of fun.
10-You aren't supposed to use heavy weapons and the like on human beings, as these are designed to take out equipment and materiel... so remember that when you use ungodly superpowers against a human being- no matter what your 'killing' code is. 'Overkill' is not good legally...
A vest of quilted cloth or leather called gambeson or aketon was worn under platemail to prevent chaffing, as wearing metal armor over naked skin (or very light cloth) isn't the best idea. Especially in warmer climates.
But those were rather thin and alone offered no protection.
Here are good examples of a rather thin gambesons worn under platemails:
This one is very thin.
This one is thicker, but doesn't extend beyond shoulders and knees.
With comparison to more bulky and limiting padding that was mandatory to wear under chainmail:
And even then, under the platemail gambeson could be not worn at all, if knight had thick clothes under his plate (well, gambesons designed to go under platemails are little more than thick clothes, anyway). In the worst case, the only additional padding under the plate is a jacket and maybe a cap. As opposite to the over the whole body padding needed for full suit of chainmail.
Small patches of mail could be worn to close the gap in places like armpits and croth, but those passed out of use in favor of tassets and smaller plates fixed over crotch and armpits.
Some soldiers had to mix and match plate and chain protection because complete plate was not available for them.
So it was platemail for arms and head, but chainmail for the torso, for example. Or chainmail coif for head and shoulders, and platemail for the rest.
This one is a good example:
Reenactor on the right has partial plate and mixes all forms of protection. Two others have complete plates and no more bits of chainmail that it was necessary to cover the gaps.
Ideal configuration, if knight could afford it, was full plate over the whole body.
Before platemail went into widespread use, there were also knights wearing full suit of chainmail, with plate reinforcements on limbs, over the shoulders and knees, for example.
I blame roleplaying games. Especially Warhammer and DnD have wearing chainmail under plate as a way of adding more protection.
I also blame RPGs, particularly the video kind, for complaints I heard from some people that the cinematic version of Thor's hammer is too small. Plainly they never saw an image of a real historical war hammer. That version of Mjolnir would be unwieldable by anyone not superhumanly strong -- head much too large, handle much too short. If that thing was made of solid steel, it would take a strong man to even lift it.
He's one of the oldest Germanic deities, under various names predates Vikings. That gives him not even Medieval, but Ancient origin.
Warhammers, as we know them, are Medieval invention and closer to the high Medieval period.
Mjolnir is very likely an atribute given to this deity because his association with thunders, and probably originated from stone tool used in labors. It couldn't originate from melee weapon, since back then Germanic tribes did not use any warhammers.
Blunt weapons weren't very common in Antiquity (no heavy armor in widespread use, if not the blade or the axe, then spear was the king of the field), and even when they were used, none of them was a warhammer. Only more or less elaborated maces and clubs. Especially Germans were using clubs.
If Mjolnir got to the Germanic mythos as a weapon, It would be a mace, not a hammer.
There were certainly no warhammers used for combat in Viking age.
I'd say his classic hammer, and in his classic appearances it indeed looked like something with stone head, is closer to the crude tool.
Though, of course, it makes no sense as a functional weapon, with this kind of look.
I suppose his movie weapon had to be made a bit more ergonomic than his comic book hammer, so it could be wielded by actor. I think acting with something shaped exacty like his classic hammer would be troublesome, in action scenes for example.
The mythological Mjolnir has a short handle, there was a reason for this in Norse mythology and it was not intentional.
Not sure if they ever addressed this in the comics...but anyway that's why his hammer is so small.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
How would you rate the effectiveness of these larger handguns assuming a shooter stronger than human, enough to compensate for gun weight and recoil?
It's still gas-operated and has only 8-7 rounds per mag.
That's a matter worth discussing.
First of all, Desert Eagles are weighted so absurdly for a reason. That reason is to reduce the recoil and help the shooter return to his target for another shot more rapidly. That being considered, there'd still be absolutely no point whatsoever- if the weapon is held by someone with super-strength, the weighted barrel shroud serves no purpose.
At this rate, he's still using an oversized handgun for no discernible reason whatsoever.
It would be a poor choice of handgun, mostly because he could easily swap it out for a more reliable firearm (remember what I said about gas-operated weapons, and the DE requires a LOT of precision cleaning and maintenance). On top of this, the weapon is not easily modified, except for its receiver/barrel/magazine kits. And, above all, it's stupid-expensive (gun shop owners laugh when people come in and inquire about them).
Now, if you're inquiring about big-bore rounds? I have my character (who is exactly as your describe) using 'Automag' handguns, just cosmetically modified. It's a 'fictional gun' that uses 357 magnum rounds and functions as an autoloader. It works similar to this model:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoMag_%28pistol%29
But is buffed out to resemble something of my own design and the like with a barrel shroud and a rail mount, similar to this:
http://imgur.com/G0cb78u
So, 'Magnum' is the word of the day. Which, in all honesty, if you want something brutal and big? Check out the T-Rex Thumpers for the .500 Magnum Smith and Wesson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucjwnPRicQw
If you can't kill it with that, the next step is explosives. But, again...
A thing to remember on big-bore rounds- the bullet can be large as hell, but like I said- the kinetic force behind it is what matters, that's why a .45 ACP isn't always the best choice- the bullet is big, the power behind it is sometimes inefficient, so the round drops and loses accuracy (.45LC is a different story, look into the old Colt revolvers and how effective they were). It doesn't matter how strong you are when your round drops at a certain range and won't go through a motorcycle jacket.
Additionally, the problem with big bore rounds is the lack of available ammo in the field/on mission. Bigger rounds are expensive, and not to mention- they tend to be more dangerous in urban environments (which is why fractal rounds are a good idea for the urban commando/vigilante).
The end result is 'just because you can, does not always mean you should'.
I have nothing else to add yet but thanks for this thread guys very useful info here.
While we're on the topic, however, if you want to be realistic with your roleplay and you have energy weapons, please remember that laser beams are beams of collimated photons, and do not explode. Nor does what the beam hits explode, unless you shoot a half-filled gasoline tank or something similar with flammable vapors under pressure. Lasers damage a target by burning through it with concentrated light. That's why they make good surgical devices ("the scalpel of infinite thinness," to quote a science popularizer) and welding/cutting tools.
If you want a beam that explodes, then a charged-particle beam is your best bet. Just remember that the explosion will probably generate some rather uncomfortable radiation as a side effect.
If you want an energy weapon that works like something from sci-fi, use handwaved technology, because if you use real-world tech and make it do something it physically cannot, someone's going to call you on it.
- David Brin, "Those Eyes"
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!