_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGZG
wrote:
> Let's just assume for this example that a fireteam's base firepower
> Primitive (bolt-action rifles) Base FP = 1
Base FP = 2
> Enhanced (improved automatic rifles) Base FP = 3
Maybe we should not think in terms of a specific tech level assigned to a FP.
Perhaps we could use more of a sliding scale where the only the tech level
(TL) of the particpants is scored against each other.
For example:
Say the game system assigns tech levels from 1(stone age) to 20 (super duper
high energy users), and a TL 5 group come in contact with a TL8 group for some
reason. Could we then assign group one into the 2 category and then assign
group 2 into the 5 category?
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Bobby <hansuke@gmail.com> wrote:
> Say the game system assigns tech levels from 1(stone age) to 20 (super
Not really. The difference in firepower varies from tech level to tech level.
Up until magazine rifles are invented, it's a fair fight even if your
opponents have flint arrowheads and simple reflex bows.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lUnl
ess you are a galactic empire fighting teddy bears in a temperate forest
environment.
-Eli
> Not really. The difference in firepower varies from tech level to
> On Tuesday 03 February 2009 00:02:23 John Atkinson wrote:
Not really. The 'arrow proof armour' used by heavy cavalry at Verneuil was
pretty immune to the English longbow. The latter gave a big technical (though
social and tactical elements were involved also) advantage in the period
before that.
There have been big technology improvements throughout history which could
render fights across early TLs not entirely fair.
Though, historically, complete lack of discipline and tactics seem to have
negated technological advantages in many cases (again, see Verneuil[1]).
[1] http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/W/weapons/armour2.html
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:57 PM, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
> Unless you are a galactic empire fighting teddy bears in a
Ewoks prove the point I think. Stone tipped spears and a bit of comedic spunk
are all you need to bring "Teh Forces of Evil Badness (tm)" to heel.
It doesn't hurt to have a few Ninja Jedi in your back pocket either.
Damo
Well, the reality vs. needs-of-the-plot rants could go on for a long
damn...
It was bad enough that the troopers were felled by single blaster shots
through their armor, but even a small stone was sufficient through those
large, and I gather, unpadded head gear.
And don't get me started on Will Smith punching in the face the STILL IN BODY
ARMOR alien...
;->=
By the way, I thought plasma weapons were quite common. Isn't that what a
shaped charge round is? Is the 'plasma jet' not true plasma?
The_Beast
Damo wrote on 02/03/2009 08:16:25 AM:
> [image removed]
> On Feb 2, 2009, at 8:57 PM, emu2020@comcast.net wrote:
Sorry, that may not have been obviously tongue-in-cheek as it was meant
to be.
I'm aware this tends to be the exception that proves the rule, as shaped
charges are very sensitive to distance from target when the explosion is
initiated.
The_Beast
Me wrote on 02/03/2009 09:32:15 AM:
*snippage*
> By the way, I thought plasma weapons were quite common. Isn't that
*more snippage*
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 09:32:15AM -0600, Doug Evans wrote:
> By the way, I thought plasma weapons were quite common. Isn't that what
It's a lot easier to make it work when it's close up. The classic plasma
rifle is basically a long stick of dynamite - you hold one end, your
enemy holds the other end, and you set it off. If you can get the stick of
dynamite to just outside the enemy's armour and set it off without having to
hold on to your end, it works a lot better from your point of view.
In order to make it work you need to get all that nasty inconvenient
atmosphere out of the way - and anything that can do that will probably
do more damage to your target than the plasma will...
(But yes, they might be useful in space combat.)
I know Star Wars blasters are supposed to be a sort of plasma weapon with the
PSB of holding the charged plasma is packets of energized gas which are then
launched from the gun. I know Star Wars isn't the best reference for
"realistic" sci-fi, but the PSB was good and I've been watching and
reading a lot of classic Star Wars.
-Eli
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu> wrote:
> By the way, I thought plasma weapons were quite common. Isn't that
Shaped charges aren't plasma - they are more like metal particles
accelerated to ridiculous speeds - such as molten copper that acts like
a solid spear due to the pressures of formation (i.e. even water can penetrate
steel if you have enough pressure).
Plasma is more along the lines of ionized gas - very hot, but not very
substantial - so in theory it can be blocked or diffused by almost any
matter such as air, fog, a leaf or dust in the air.
--Binhan
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:32 AM, Doug Evans
The thing is that, when we are trying to write a generic set of SF rules, the
only "source material" we can draw upon is a fusion (pun intended...) of the
most popular concepts and ideas in published SF. Thus, at the end of the day,
it's about hover and grav tanks,
power-armoured infantry, lasers and plasma guns, FTL travel etc etc -
they may not make a lot of sense when you look at the science behind them, but
they are firmly entrenched in the genre, so they'll be in
the game! ;-)
> On Feb 3, 2009, at 10:32 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
> Well, the reality vs. needs-of-the-plot rants could go on for a long
Are you somehow implying that said Ewoks were in fact NOT fierce killing
machines but simply plot devices?;)
Damo
Recent episode of the Clone Wars series has another primitive race, the Talz
(Muftak's species for those of you in the know) that were savage, big,
fuzzy, stone-aged warriors on an ice planet. These ones had cavalry too.
-Eli
Are you somehow implying that said Ewoks were in fact NOT fierce killing
machines but simply plot devices?;)
Damo
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com> wrote:
There's nothing wrong with genre emulation. One of my favourite RPGs
is _Feng Shui_ (Hong Kong action movies, essentially). I've been known
to use "plasma" guns from time to time, too.
I just find the juxtaposition of "bolt action rifles versus power armour is
not realistic" coupled to a game with plasma guns quite... humorous.
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shaped charges aren't plasma - they are more like metal particles
I knew someone was going to point out that shaped charges aren't plasma, but I
thought it was going to be our resident weapon designer...
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Shaped charges aren't plasma - they are more like metal particles
Ridiculous, but not ludicrous speed, then? Or would the latter be a
different sub-genre? :-D
Phil
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 12:30 PM, Ground Zero Games <jon@gzg.com>
wrote:
> Thus, at the end of the day, it's about hover and grav tanks,
Why?
Can there be no primitive societies in a universe that also has
power-armored marines? A human wave vs a small squadron simply trying
to get back to a safe zone. Germans armed with bolt-action rifles at
the start of WWII also have 20mm armed tanks and the powerful 88mm.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Chip Dunning <chip.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just find the juxtaposition of "bolt action rifles versus power
On the one hand, you have some arguing "bolt action rifles versus power armour
does not make a realistic game". At the same time, we're talking about a game
with plasma guns.
This happens all the time on this list. Passionate arguments for realism in
one aspect of the rules while easy acceptance of pure fantasy in another
aspect of the same rules.
This amuses me.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDif
ferent sub-genre - copper particles accelerated to the speed of light
are the Hammer's Slammers Powerguns. Whole different weapon;)
--Binhan
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Phillip Atcliffe
<atcliffe@ntlworld.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Shaped charges aren't plasma - they are more like metal particles
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lAct
ually a better example would be the Fall of Berlin in 1945 - due to
strange political maneuvering and poor judgment, the Germans were fielding a
mishmash of equipment, from high-tech jet fighters to molotov cocktails.
The big limitations were fuel, ammunition and food.
A high-tech weapon requires a high tech supply train - you aren't likely
to be able to charge fusion cells off a couple of solar panels, and if you are
firing hundreds of times to fend off the primitive hordes, you will be chewing
rapidly through ammo.
Power armor will also require maintenance and spare parts - super
admantium plates are unlikely to be easily repaired or replaced in the field
with a pair of pliers, which necessitates a workshop or rear area for
maintenance.
Even if a primitive society does not "kill" a soldier, by simply damaging or
impairing his ability to fight may be a victory in itself - if a
soldier's weapon is damaged or depleted of ammo so that it can not fire, how
effective is he?
Scenarios such as long range patrols where a platoon or company is
cut-off
from supply and an attack comes in before they can be relieved have many
historical precedents, and I suspect that there will be many more.
Natives can also use local terrain to negate a technology advantage -
quicksand, swampy areas, pits, trenches, ravines, rocky terrain, caves,
settlements, etc. Unless PA also includes an inertia damper, falling from 50
or 60 feet down a canyon wall is going to mess someone up. minefields, IED's
or other boobytraps can be used to slow down or prevent the advance of a
unit, even a high-tech one. Sheer mass, such as avalanches, landslides
or floods can wipe out whole units.
A smart commander fights on terrain of his choosing, most don't have the
opportunity to do so. I think that gaming a high tech vs. low tech game will
have to center around a balance of terrain vs. weapons, otherwise why game a
massacre?
One caveat - I do like British Colonial gaming - hordes of sword and
spear wielding natives against breech loading rifles and early MG's is
appealing to me, especially as a native player. Casualties are horrendous, but
the
natives win about 1/3 of the time, usually due to a critical error on
the British commanders part or ridiculous orders from their higher command. A
key aspect to these games is the psychological component - often factors
from previous games can influence players in the current game (i.e. He always
leads with the Fuzzy Wuzzys, that is where the main attack is coming from)
that can be used to deceive them or at least draw their attention away
from key areas - if they focus on the Fuzzy Wuzzys on top of the nearby
hill, they may miss the mass enfilading them through a nearby ravine which
then seems to "pop out of nowhere".
High tech vs. low tech is workable, but the rules and scenario need
to accommodate the limitations - for instance, perhaps the high-tech
weapons are low on ammo or need maintenance and thus are not operating at peak
rated efficiency. Perhaps locals have utilized an extensive cave system to
provide a transportation network that allows them to move unsighted around the
board, popping out at close ranges with explosive devices. Orders from above
may require that the unit take and hold a particular junction or building and
retreat is not an option (i.e. their APC or transport has been disabled). or a
unit is on a rescue and recovery mission where there is a limited amount of
time available to traverse the board before the downed unit is overwhelmed.
--Binhan
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Chip Dunning <chip.dunning@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can there be no primitive societies in a universe that also has
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Chip Dunning <chip.dunning@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I just find the juxtaposition of "bolt action rifles versus power
> From my reading the point wasn't about realism, but about fun, and/or
Bill
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Chip Dunning <chip.dunning@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I just find the juxtaposition of "bolt action rifles versus power
> To be fair, Allan, I think the initial point was more along the
Keeping the fun while using mixed tech levels in a generic game setting is not
easy; we may succeed, we may not, only time and
playtesting will tell.... ;-)
Jon (GZG)
> --
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 06:45, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> On the one hand, you have some arguing "bolt action rifles versus
Leaving realism aside, this is one of my favorite scenarios. Hunting PA with
antitank rifles. Especially with things like limited communication on the low
tec side.
As a massed infantry fight like some many seem to like it's not so good. But
in the patrol vs. patrol it is a hoot. But then again I like tactical
challenges.
--
Evyn
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com> wrote:
> On the one hand, you have some arguing "bolt action rifles versus
I sincerely hope you aren't attempting to paraphrase me.
I didn't make that argument.
I argued that weapons incapable of penetrating the armor of first-line
troops at the default tech level need not be modelled, as they will have
essentially no effect. I also argued that men armed with weapons incapable of
hurting their enemies will break and run and cannot be made to face said
enemies.
It is a slightly more nuanced argument.
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Binhan Lin <binhan.lin@gmail.com> wrote:
> One caveat - I do like British Colonial gaming - hordes of sword and
Point of fact: The Fuzzy Wuzzies can certainly kill their opponents, they
simply have to get slightly closer than Tommy Atkins has to. If they can't,
then the story is truly different. Thing to consider:
> From approx 1700 to approx 1960, there was NO technological
relatively soon Fuzzy Wuzzy with a spear or a primitive firearm or whatever is
going to not be a factor worth nothing. Now the easy way around that is to
suggest that arms dealers would have supplied the native with modern weapons
and a limited quantity of ammunition. See: Sioux vs. 7th Cavalry, where the
majority of the Sioux were carrying more technologically advanced weapons than
their opponents.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Evyn MacDude <infojunky@ceecom.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 06:45, Allan Goodall <agoodall@hyperbear.com>
wrote:
> On the one hand, you have some arguing "bolt action rifles versus
Crunch Guns from TNE... 14.5mm monstrosities that existed for one
reason, to kill body armor. Could be manufactured by any TL6-capable
TEDdie out there.
That's an interesting fight. Lopsided, but still worth playing.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lGiv
en that the hitting power of current heavy sniper weapons is sufficient to
disable engine blocks of trucks, how tough would body armour have to be to
survive an enhanced version of that weapon? Even if the round did not
penetrate the concussive force transferred to the body is still going to be
unpleasant.
Then there is the issue that not all parts of such a suit are going to be
armoured to the same levels, joints and exhaust ports and sensors are always
going to be more fragile than full armour.
A game where one side is essentially un armoured but has heavy damage if slow,
weapons against a force with personal armour and shorter ranged rapid firing
weapons sounds exactly the sort of game that any sort of generic scifi rules
should be able to take into account.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:51 PM, John Tailby <john_tailby@xtra.co.nz>
wrote:
> Given that the hitting power of current heavy sniper weapons is
It depends on a number of factors. Sure, you can build a fairly primitive
weapon that barely qualifies as a "small arm" in order to punch power armor.
But that's going to be big, rare, expensive, nearly static... And anyone who
doesn't have one is going to refuse to face those Star Vikings or flee at the
first taste of plasma.
But those are going to be handled under the heavy weapon rules or a variation
on the sniper rules, not the regular rifle rules.
I imagine that you could work out some special scenario where those hordes of
untrained rabble firing weapons that make noise but have not battlefield
effect could have an impact on the game. But I'd rather leave that to the
imagination of the scenario designers than for Jon to waste time, effort, and
ink writing rules for the oddball who wants to try out games integrating Space
Marines with pike and shot regiments.
> At 8:29 PM -0600 2/4/09, John Atkinson wrote:
> Point of fact: The Fuzzy Wuzzies can certainly kill their opponents,
Minor Nitpick, there was body armor development during WWI for the static
warfare role of snipers and machine gun teams. The Germans at least had breast
and groin plates as well as face shields that locked over their helmets for
defense against incoming rifle rounds and fragments.
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//post-535-1184014369.jpg
The armor was of course useless for the attack being far to heavy to move
about in at any speed or endurance. So it was only effective for static
defenders with heavy weapons who wouldn't be going over the top on the attack
anyhow.
/Mr picky
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 11:01 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com>
wrote:
> But I'd rather leave that to the imagination of the scenario
That oddball would be me but my particular obsession would be zombies and
modern (20th century) troops. Thankfully the former don't really care about
how many buddies get mowed down.:)
I agree with the sentiment though -- put the work on the scenario
writer's shoulders.
D.
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Minor Nitpick, ...
And then came the elephant-style guns that punched right through the
stuff. I believe the point was that development didn't occur in the body armor
realm as fast as in the weapons realm.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lNot
to mention the very limited deployment of such armors.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Ryan Gill wrote:
Erm? Absolute statements like that always make me twitch.
While it's certainly true that body armour was not widely used by ground
troops during this period, there certainly was technological development in
the field. Other posters have referred to the use of
armour in the trenches of WW1, and so-called "bullet-proof vests"
were sold commercially in the inter-war period. More importantly,
first the British RAF and later especially the United States Army Airforce
sponsored a lot of work on body armour for aircrew, and hundreds of thousands
of sets were manufactured and deployed by the end of WWII. Similar armours
were also issued to naval personnel in WWII and saw some use by US ground
troops in Korea, especially the
thirty-odd thousand issued by the Marine Corps.
There's a reason why the generic name for body-armour in the modern
era is (or maybe *was*) "flak jacket"; they descended from the "flak
suits" worn by bomber crews, and were intended to stop relatively low-
velocity splinters and fragments, although the were also effective
against low-performance bullets.
Oh, and let's not forget the first piece of body armour for the modern era.
The humble tin hat...
Let's not forget about Kelly. A bank robber with body armor seems pretty
innovative.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
Ooops, sorry! That was a brain-fart. The tin hat might have been the
first body-armour of the modern era, but it hardly represented a
technological advance. No doubt any soldier from the days of Ur and Sumer on
would have recognised it...
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l
According to that logic there hasn't been any sort of advance then. Every
modern armor is just a refinement of previous technologies. Kevlar
weave instead of cotton or linen. Plates of high-density ceremic instead
of metal. I'm pretty sure if you held up a flak vest it would register as
armor with our ancient counterparts.
-Eli
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com>
> Ooops, sorry! That was a brain-fart. The tin hat might have been the
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com> wrote:
> Erm? Absolute statements like that always make me twitch.
Utterly ineffective against small arms of the kind issued to ground troops.
I will concede some work being done in the 1940-1960 time period, and
occasional experiments before then, however, during this time, no armor that
was even moderately effective against the primary weapon of an infantryman was
in use other than an oddity for limited circumstances and limited numbers. The
point I was making is valid, nitpicks aside.
> Oh, and let's not forget the first piece of body armour for the
Which is actually a huge step backwards compared to the heights reached in
helmet design during the 1400s. Have a buddy with a bascinet which is
incredibly glancy. He's got to screw up his defenses something bad for me to
put a solid blow on his head.
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:05 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
Or they'd be saying, in their ancient tongue, "Why and the hell is he wearing
that stiff ass tight coat in THIS weather?"
D.
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:05 PM, <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
"Why and the hell"??
:-D
Mk
*chuckle*
Says the man who goes into battle wearing 100+ pounds of bronze in the
Mediterranean.
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
"You had bronze? Back in my day all we had was bad sandals and a
sling!" :(
Get out of the country son! Come to the big city!
[quoted original message omitted]
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn
> Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 07:47, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:31 AM, Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net>
wrote:
> > *chuckle*
Meh.... In my day we counted ourselves luck if we where barefoot and had a
sharpened stick......
--
Evyn
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lDam
> ond Walker wrote:
wrote:
> *chuckle*
<bad faux Yorkshire accent> Luxury... We 'ad t'catch, kill 'n' skin us
own animals t'get untanned 'ide for foot-bags and t'sling. </bad faux
Yorkshire accent> <g>
Phil
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 8:10 PM, John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Robert N Bryett <rbryett@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Erm? Absolute statements like that always make me twitch.
It was not meant to be effective against small arms. It was meant to
protect against shell fragments and grenades-- the stuff that kills in
job lots.
> I will concede some work being done in the 1940-1960 time period, and
The weapons that inflicted the most casualties were artillery and
air-dropped bombs. Bombs and shells, by happy coincidence, are easier
to protect against than bullets from high velocity rifles, so body armor
developement went for the low hanging fruit that would still yield significant
results, if picked. As for not stopping the primary weapon of an infantryman,
the ideal role of the infantryman's rifle was to pin the enemy down long
enough for the artillery or airstrike to kill him. The primary weapon of the
infantryman was not the primary weapon of warfare (until fairly recently).
> Oh, and let's not forget the first piece of body armour for the
Next time, use a gun. The problem with all of those classic armors (aside form
hideous expense) was the problem of not stopping bullets reliably and seldom
stopping crossbow bolts, at all. Even pike squares gave them pause. The humble
modern helmet does do its assigned task of allowing a soldier to peek over the
top of a trench, without guaranteeing that the enemy marksman takes off the
top of his head
The problem with modern body armor on the battlefield is that the weapons
already have far too much penetration, as a side effect of being able to hit a
mansized target at just under a kilometer. The danger of modern armor is that
it will prevent a round that would
normally pass straight through from exitting-- generating a much more
severe wound, as it stops.
> [quoted text omitted]
It was less than a hundred pounds, and was often not bronze, at all. The
standard was a boiled leather cuirass. Those wealthy enough to afford bronze
had alternate armor for conditions that would make the
bronze reduce their combat effectiveness-- linen. Linen armor was
made up of several layers and may have been impregnated with resin, to stiffen
it (multiple layers stitched together may also work). While not as reliably as
silk, the threads would often follow the arrow in, making it relatively easy
to remove a barbed arrow.
The Egyptians, who lacked bronze, went straight for linen armor and carved
empires, as their power waxed before waning again; until, the Hittites showed
up with iron weapons.
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:31 AM, Eli Arndt <emu2020@comcast.net> wrote:
I am not ignorant to the history of armor, but my point was simply that a flak
jacket would be recognizable as armor by warriors of the past. As for the
weight stated, not meant to be accurate, just pointing out that between,
helmet, shield, cuirass, and greeves, it wasn't light. And whether or not
bronze was worn by all or all the time, is not the issue, it's whether it in
analogous to modern flack vests, which, bear a striking resemblance in cut and
style to ancient body armor.
Anyhow, the humor has left the thread and the whipping of the dead equine has
begun.
Take care,
Eli
> From: Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com>
You got sandals?
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Derek Rogillio <derek@rogillio.net> wrote:
> "You had bronze? Back in my day all we had was bad sandals and a
On BOTH feet mister.
D.
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 6:05 AM, Damond Walker <damosan@gmail.com> wrote:
Nah, because it would be about equivalent to a thick leather coat. Which is
surprisingly effective at taking the edge off glancing blows,
and hence was the most common form of armor for lower-class troops for
most of history.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Richard Bell <rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com> wrote:
> Utterly ineffective against small arms of the kind issued to ground
Fascinating. However, since the topic under discussion is small arms,
irrelevant.
> Which is actually a huge step backwards compared to the heights
Too easy. And not Society-legal. No matter how much duct tape I put on
it.
> (aside form hideous expense) was the problem of not stopping bullets
1) Crap, as your "classic" helmet will indeed stop a crossbow bolt that hits
other than squarely. That's why helmet survived for such a long time after
other armor went the way of the dodo.
2) It would amuse me highly for you to get shot in the head wearing
any of the "tin hats" of 1916-1975. They didn't really protect
against small arms fire either until the adoption of ceramic composites in the
1980s.
> The problem with modern body armor on the battlefield is that the
A lot depends on the modern armor in question--I know more than a few
people who stopped an AK round in the SAPI plate and had nothing but bruises
to show for the experience. On the other hand, if you can hit a mansized
target at just under a kilometer with an AK other than by sheer accident, you
are a god among marksmen. So perhaps you're talking about Mausers or
something...
> On Feb 6, 2009, at 7:30 PM, John Atkinson wrote:
Hmmm...from memory I think I'd go with the leather coat in that case. The
vests I remember certainly covered the money areas but left other important
parts wide open.
Of course this was late '80s early '90s. It wasn't the high-falutin'
velcro laden stuff the boys wear today.
Damo
> At 10:37 AM -0700 2/6/09, Richard Bell wrote:
The modern helmet or the WWII/WWI helmet? Those
were to protect your noggin from lighter slower fragments and minor damage.
Hence the wide brim of the british tommy helmet. The weight of these helmets
doesn't even protect against pistol velocity bullets.
> The problem with modern body armor on the battlefield is that the
Which armor and which round?
I'm not getting your drift and frankly, it's not good the back chicken plate
stops the 7.62x54R bullet from leaving or not. Likely it'll lodge in the
carrier.
> At 6:30 PM -0600 2/6/09, John Atkinson wrote:
And even later, buff coats were worn by even some of the most well heeled
troops. Gustav Adolphus Rex for example.
> At 10:52 AM -0700 2/6/09, Richard Bell wrote:
A lot of the utility would also depend on the tactics of the time and the
various engagement methods.
Were we conducting a jungle war, I suspect the armor that's being used in Iraq
would be lessened if our troops were patrolling on foot through rice paddys.
> At 8:08 AM -0800 2/6/09, Eli Arndt wrote:
What, to raid and pillage? Gladly said the Kelts. Just put those geese away!