The starknife is already in the beta, the War Razor is simply a folding Kukri, and the bladed scarf has recieved almost as much hate as the spiked chain. The earthbreaker is looking promising though.
And here I thought this thread was about new weapons posters had come up with... :(
*takes his hammer-axe and goes home*
Personally, I'd like the see the sword breaker, triple dagger and lantern shield added to the game. Perhaps an actually accurate description of what a falchion is would be cool too. And how's about those Indian weapons from Escape from Old Korvosa added to the official list?
The starknife is already in the beta, the War Razor is simply a folding Kukri, and the bladed scarf has recieved almost as much hate as the spiked chain. The earthbreaker is looking promising though.
I realized after making a slight change in a game, the earthbreaker (medium sized) is simply a large-size warhammer. Also, I still don't understand why all the hate for the spiked chain (and by extension, the bladed scarf). In my years of gaming in 3.X, I've seen exactly one character use one.
Well I see the spiked chain as something like a clock pendulum, and personally like the over all idea of it in a fantasy game. However the hate comes from two ends I think:
1. The picture in the PHB is horrible and not useful.
2. People don't realise the damage a simple half inch weighted chain can do without a bladed end to it, and therefore call the weapon "impossible".
Also, I still don't understand why all the hate for the spiked chain (and by extension, the bladed scarf). In my years of gaming in 3.X, I've seen exactly one character use one.Lots of NPCs though.
I must be running the wrong mods.
Well I see the spiked chain as something like a clock pendulum, and personally like the over all idea of it in a fantasy game. However the hate comes from two ends I think:
1. The picture in the PHB is horrible and not useful.
2. People don't realise the damage a simple half inch weighted chain can do without a bladed end to it, and therefore call the weapon "impossible".
That's funny, there's at least half a dozen jackie chan movies where he fights a guy with a chain, even indiana jones foghts a guy with a chain.
The shaolin monks have used a non spiked chain since before english was a language.
Well I see the spiked chain as something like a clock pendulum, and personally like the over all idea of it in a fantasy game. However the hate comes from two ends I think:
1. The picture in the PHB is horrible and not useful.
2. People don't realise the damage a simple half inch weighted chain can do without a bladed end to it, and therefore call the weapon "impossible".That's funny, there's at least half a dozen jackie chan movies where he fights a guy with a chain, even indiana jones foghts a guy with a chain.
The shaolin monks have used a non spiked chain since before english was a language.
Doesn't even have to be a chain. In Shanghai Noon, Jackie Chan fights with a length of rope tied to a horseshoe as a makeshift weapon.
Yes what I was saying is people don't understand how the weapons really function or how lethal they can be.
Also (again) the picture provided in the PHB isn't very good and doesn't represent what the weapon might actually look like.
Yes what I was saying is people don't understand how the weapons really function or how lethal they can be.
Also (again) the picture provided in the PHB isn't very good and doesn't represent what the weapon might actually look like.
I really do understand how a sword works, and no way does a "spiked chain" do half the damage of a sword.
I really do understand how a sword works, and no way does a "spiked chain" do half the damage of a sword.Yes what I was saying is people don't understand how the weapons really function or how lethal they can be.
Also (again) the picture provided in the PHB isn't very good and doesn't represent what the weapon might actually look like.
A sword is a very poor weapon over all. The flail is much better, as is the flanged mace. A chain with a weight at the end can very easily cause more damage to a person than a sword can. The way I envision the spiked chain would be more like a blade at the end of a chain.
But heck if you don't think it's likely we could always just ask MythBusters ;D
Is there possibly a list of these new items and roughly what they do?
The FBI did a ballistics experiment on "common" street thug weapons back in the late 80s. At the time, the "nun chuck" was becomming incresingly popular.
The nunchuck was found to have lethal force equalling or exceeding that of a.45 caliber pistol round.
The mechanic of a small amount of weight spun around on a length of rope/chain is quite devastating.
the scientific law is called "centrifugal force" and it has a multiplication/exponential effect.
This has been proven by the effectiveness of the flail and its sister weapons. And really the only reason why something like a whip hurts at all.
There for a spiked chain doing 1/2 the damage of a sword? Easy. No problem.
But it would have extremely limited uses (tight fighting conditions, opponent has a shield, two weapon fighters could easily entangle chain, etc etc)
There for a spiked chain doing 1/2 the damage of a sword? Easy. No problem.But it would have extremely limited uses (tight fighting conditions, opponent has a shield, two weapon fighters could easily entangle chain, etc etc)
-3^v^vooooooooOooooooooo^v^vE-
Indeed. an 8-foot long heavy chain could be devastating. My vision of the spiked chain is basically a generous length of 1 inch steel chain with what amounts to a bladed flail on either end, and perhaps a foot of links on either end are actually spiked (See horrible ascii art above). When it comes down to it, the spikes are really just there to give it a little more bite for engangling and tripping opponents. The weight of the chain alone would cause horrific damage, spikes of the size employed would just be secondary lacerations.
actually what would the chain alone do to some one in full plate? (other than trip/entangle) The spikes would be necessary for damaging such an opponent.
Is there possibly a list of these new items and roughly what they do?
Well the war razor is a high crit ranged sort of light weapon...
The Earthbreaker could be discribed as a bludgeoning greataxe...The bladed scarf might be a bit like the spiked chain...
and The dogslicer... well it's a goblin weapon we'll leave it at that.
I think the argument against the spiked chain is a balance one. Out of the list of all the exotic weapons, it really is the most advantaged. Not to mention the fact that most of those weapons don't deserve exotic status. Heck, most of them wouldn't even be worth the mention if not for flavor and the monk class abilities. However, I digress.
The spiked chain is a double weapon doing normal damage (one could argue even better damage than others of it's size) with reach that doesn't preclude it from being used inside of it's range. Plus it can be used to trip, disarm, and it's finessable. All together, it really is an over-the-top weapon. Realistic? Absolutely, but not balanced properly against the other weapons for gameplay.
On another note, I've always thought they should put some stats in the system for short length of chain used as a weapon. It sounds like it'd make a good off-hand weapon.
there is however 2 problem with every weapon that uese a chain as part of its construction. be that the spiked chain, the flail or the nun-chuck.
the weapons in not hard to spin, the real problem comes into play when you hit your opponent with the weapon, u break the spin, and the weapon will bounch of the target and most likely bringing it completly out of control. the longer the chain the bigger the problem is.
2nd the chain i very likely to get entangeled in the opponents gear(sword and shield), making you deffenceless.
in fact some studies of midival weapons show that the flail was ues as a thrown weapon, employed by horse mounted soldiers. the spinning effeck of the weapon makes for a much harder throw(just look at the olympic diciplin of hammer throw).
weather the weapon is leathal is really not a question, ofc it is, in fact it might be more painfull to be hit with a blunt weapon if u are in a plate armor, remember that the palte will bend(into the users flesh) if enough foce is applied.
then again, this is a fantasy game. so non if these problems really matters that much.
there is however 2 problem with every weapon that uese a chain as part of its construction. be that the spiked chain, the flail or the nun-chuck.
the weapons in not hard to spin, the real problem comes into play when you hit your opponent with the weapon, u break the spin, and the weapon will bounch of the target and most likely bringing it completly out of control. the longer the chain the bigger the problem is.
2nd the chain i very likely to get entangeled in the opponents gear(sword and shield), making you deffenceless.
in fact some studies of midival weapons show that the flail was ues as a thrown weapon, employed by horse mounted soldiers. the spinning effeck of the weapon makes for a much harder throw(just look at the olympic diciplin of hammer throw).
weather the weapon is leathal is really not a question, ofc it is, in fact it might be more painfull to be hit with a blunt weapon if u are in a plate armor, remember that the palte will bend(into the users flesh) if enough foce is applied.
then again, this is a fantasy game. so non if these problems really matters that much.
The flail or similar weapons have a point of impact where a chain would spread the impact across the contact area (no specific point of impact) thus allowing the plate armor to do what it designed to do (spread the impact out thus minimisizing or nullifying damage)
Ive always had issue with monks beating up iron golems for the same reason, but like you said fantasy game...
The flail was mainly used from horse back. The limited motion a horseman in plate could get made certain weapon less effective unless the horse was in forward motion (you effectively only got a half swing from horse back because of the mobility of the joints in the armor)
The flail only needed the flick of elbow/wrist to get the weapon effective again (without a horse moving forward).
It also was effective because the rider didnt have to lean over to get dismounted combatants. with a flick the chain bashed people in the head and you could effectively keep your center of balance at waist level.
All in all a pretty good weapon for head bashing.
I have never found a real world refernce to a footmans flail, no paintings, or writings about it. Any one else seen an actual reference (non DnD) to one?
I for one have always liked the flail, and back when the cleric could only use the mace, hammer, flail or club combo. I used to be the flail cleric (everyone else always took mace)
|
The flail or similar weapons have a point of impact where a chain would spread the impact across the contact area (no specific point of impact) thus allowing the plate armor to do what it designed to do (spread the impact out thus minimisizing or nullifying damage)
Ive always had issue with monks beating up iron golems for the same reason, but like you said fantasy game...
The flail was mainly used from horse back. The limited motion a horseman in plate could get made certain weapon less effective unless the horse was in forward motion (you effectively only got a half swing from horse back because of the mobility of the joints in the armor)
The flail only needed the flick of elbow/wrist to get the weapon effective again (without a horse moving forward).
It also was effective because the rider didnt have to lean over to get dismounted combatants. with a flick the chain bashed people...
I've done quite a bit of research, and the Egyptian infantry were the original weilders of the flail (improvised from farming implements). From that point forward the flail has been a peasants weapon, as swords and spears were reserved for the noble and warrior castes.
The most famous implementation of the flail comes as a result of the protestant reformation, when the Bohemian Hussites used the flail in large numbers to battle their opponents. This was a short chain version of the flail, which was also utilized by many other militaries during the middle ages. The scottish peasantry put it to great use during their struggles against the english.
The longer chain version of the flail was used as a cavalry weapon, but was best utilized in single combat as it requires a large amount of space to weild properly as you are just as likely to injure an ally as an opponent.
The catholic church forbade it's ordained preists to weild bladed weapons, so during the crusade those who were ordained warrior priests (many of the monastic orders) weilded weapons known as "mace and chain" (which are flails). The knights templar and the Jesuits (society of Jesus) were two orders given permission to fight with swords, they were also all "knighted" hence the disticntion that they could fight with swords. ( I am not sure about the history of the hospitalars, but memeory serves me there are paintings of them with swords somewhere in the crusades as well, but Im not sure many of them were ordained)
The Templar or knights of the temple order, gave rise to the paladin class (clericy characters with swords) The vast majority of templars were not full ordained "Fathers" but were sworn in Brothers (hence the lesser clerical powers of the paladin)
The "Cleric" character comes out of this concept of catholic warrior preists and their "restriction" to blunted weapons.
The French Particularly used the weapon to great effect,mounted. For the reasons I previously posted.
After the first few crusades, what was originally an argicultural flail (the same tool that gave rise to the nun chuck as well) was well accepted as a weapon, and was seen in a distinctive role as a "lordly weapon" (because of its use by ordained warrior priests during the crusades) and not fit for use by "common troops". This irony is very common in the history of the Catholic church, seeing the weapon came from the influence of a peasants tool.
The French Knights (the first to be dubbed "defenders of the faith") took up the flail in combat as they were both of the station (knight) and "holiness" (defender of the faith) to use them. Hence forth the more modern "knight" came to mean one who defended the catholic church(ie "paladin") and were all also refered to amoung themselves as "brothers" from the catholic term for a lesser priest.
This is also were the term "brothers in arms" originated from.
The DnD reference to clerics, paladins and flails all came from this source from history and were the influences used to create the backstory to all the Basic and 1e work on the cleric and reasons for his restiction to weaponry.
For those of you who do not know, the agricultural flail was used to beat sheaves of wheat to get the grain out of the sheaves ( a pretty ineeicent method, but much better than beating it with a stick)
I have not scene reference to the flail in any egyptian battles or heiroglyphics, although admittedly I am far from and egyptologist.
It seems logical to assume the ag-flail existed in that society, seeing as techincally, they were far more technologicaly advanced than crusade era europe (techincally). Egypt had more civil engineering, Europe had much better metallurgy, but that could also be geographic, considering that the metals necessary to create iron/steel are not nearly as abundant in the egyptian empires area of influence.
|
|
The catholic church forbade it's ordained preists to weild bladed weapons, so during the crusade those who were ordained warrior priests (many of the monastic orders) weilded weapons known as "mace and chain" (which are flails). The knights templar and the Jesuits (society of Jesus) were two orders given permission to fight with swords, they were also all "knighted" hence the disticntion that they could fight with swords. ( I am not sure about the history of the hospitalars, but memeory serves me there are paintings of them with swords somewhere in the crusades as well, but Im not sure many of them were ordained)
The Templar or knights of the temple order, gave rise to the paladin class (clericy characters with swords) The vast majority of templars were not full ordained "Fathers" but were sworn in Brothers (hence the lesser clerical powers of the paladin)The "Cleric" character comes out of this concept of catholic warrior preists and their "restriction" to blunted weapons.
The French Particularly used the weapon to great effect,mounted. For the reasons I previously posted.
After the first few crusades, what was originally an argicultural flail (the same tool that gave rise to the nun chuck as well) was well accepted as a weapon, and was seen in a distinctive role as a "lordly weapon" (because of its use by ordained warrior priests during the crusades) and not fit for use by "common troops". This irony is very common in the history of the Catholic church, seeing the weapon came from the influence of a peasants tool.
The French Knights (the first to be dubbed "defenders of the faith") took up the flail in combat as they were both of the station (knight) and "holiness" (defender of the faith) to use them. Hence forth the more modern "knight" came to mean one who defended the catholic church(ie "paladin") and were all also refered to amoung themselves as "brothers" from the catholic term for a lesser priest.
This is also were the term "brothers in arms" originated from.The DnD reference to...
History is full of ironies like this, and the flail is no exception.
There are many other examples of historical chain weapons being weilded by either the peasantry or infantry. The most famous end up being eastern in origin, such as the meteor hammer and chain whip. Each and every one of these requires large amounts of room to weild properly, but if they have sufficient room its hard to stop their momentum.
A spiked chain, which I've never seen a real world equivalent, should be similar to the chain whip in its use. I wouldn't know how the spikes would interact with the opponent, but something tells me that they would make the weapon incredibly unstable and very dangerous to the weilder.
As for the Egyptians being more technically advanced than crusader era Eurpoe is a matter of interpretation. The Egyptians lacked a source of native iron to make weapons and had to import their iron or steel well into the middle ages. They had to make do with what they had, which was a rich source of copper (along with nearby Tin in the Levant for bronze smelting) and lots of farm implements.
The FBI did a ballistics experiment on "common" street thug weapons back in the late 80s. At the time, the "nun chuck" was becomming incresingly popular.
The nunchuck was found to have lethal force equalling or exceeding that of a.45 caliber pistol round.
A .45 ACP round has 350 ft-lb of energy. Perhaps if swung with wreckless abandon the nunchuck might match that, but after you hit your opponent it will bounce off and crack your knuckles or the hand bones. This is also a fairly common injury among nunchuckers.
IIRC, it only takes 58 ft-lb to make an incapacitating wound with a bullet. The bullet has a way of channeling much of that excess energy into the body. A nunchuck doesn't. Which is why it bounces off.
Momentum is a better indicator of damage when it comes to hand weapons.
I really do understand how a sword works, and no way does a "spiked chain" do half the damage of a sword.
A sword is a very poor weapon over all.
Except for the part about "if I hit you with it, it cuts you." People wouldn't have made swords if they didn't work.
The flail is much better, as is the flanged mace. A chain with a weight at the end can very easily cause more damage to a person than a sword can.
In extreme cases, perhaps, but not in the average case. It can kill, but that isn't the same as "doing more damage." The flail has its strengths and weaknesses, just as the sword. The quickness of a balanced sword will beat the flail or mace any day.
Nothing extreme about it.
The Flanged mace will generally hurt you no matter your armor, and damage the armor in the process, making both it and you less effective. The sword might dent the armor or cause some bruising, but it will be much less and takes much more training to use properly.
Against an unarmored person the mace is going to hurt them severally even on a glancing blow, the sword is going to leave a gash, some bleeding and maybe leave your guts hanging out, but you still have guts, the mace gets you and you can kiss that area of your body good bye. Chain Mail is generally useless against a flanged mace, and plate doesn't fair much better. Also becuase of the design of a flanged mace it doesn't need to be overly heavy to cause the damage we are talking about.
If I personally had to choose between getting hit by a sword or getting hit by a mace, with no other options, I would tak the sword.
The flail is more difficult to use but it has all the other advantages of the mace, and it can "wrap shot" as well.
The FBI did a ballistics experiment on "common" street thug weapons back in the late 80s. At the time, the "nun chuck" was becomming incresingly popular.
The nunchuck was found to have lethal force equalling or exceeding that of a.45 caliber pistol round.A .45 ACP round has 350 ft-lb of energy. Perhaps if swung with wreckless abandon the nunchuck might match that, but after you hit your opponent it will bounce off and crack your knuckles or the hand bones. This is also a fairly common injury among nunchuckers.
IIRC, it only takes 58 ft-lb to make an incapacitating wound with a bullet. The bullet has a way of channeling much of that excess energy into the body. A nunchuck doesn't. Which is why it bounces off.
Momentum is a better indicator of damage when it comes to hand weapons.
Gang members from the 1980s were not "martial artists" by any stretch of the word, there for it was really used like a club/sap.
The arm was fully extended and full centrifugal force was applied, the weapon was swung left to right and bak again, nothing more fancy unless they watched too many bruce lee movies an broke the pause button.The force of the nunchuck strike was as equally lethal as the .45 acp round. Period. I am confident in my mind that the FBI's analysis was far more indepth and took more things into consideration and had vastly more resources at their disposal than any of us from which to draw a hypothesis.
Their conclusion is the simply mechanic of the nunchuck was just as deadly as the bullet knon to be the "most effective manstopper" the .45 acp.
The mecahnic of the flail and the nunchuck are identical, the the exception that instead of two handles, the flail has a war head on one side (and there for is used exactly the way the gang memebers in the 80s used the nunchuck)
Flail-men didn't have so much issue with the "bouce off affect" due to the fact that things like heads/necks tend to have thir own "give" when struck and the human is not an immoble wall.
I suspect as far as knuckle scrapes, the guantlet handles all those issues.
This discussion is interesting.
Anyone in European history who could afford a long/broad sword never carried just that weapon into battle.
Peasants had little choice - they got what their lord provided. Asian warriors didn't really face serious armor. And renaissance warriors didn't either.
But in the days of heavy metal armor, you either had a sword (you were fairly wealthy) or you didn't.
If you had a sword, you used it in battle against unarmored foes. The speed and ease of incapacitating your enemy, with less energy spent on your part, made it the weapon of choice against unarmored (or lightly armored) opponents.
If you faced an armored foe, you broke out your mace/flail and bashed them to death inside their armor.
This, of course, doesn't help the D&D fighter when deciding with which weapon he is going to specialize. Fortunately for him, we have done away with 1st edition charts that increase/decrease the effectiveness of your weapon vs. various armor types.
This discussion is interesting.
Anyone in European history who could afford a long/broad sword never carried just that weapon into battle.
Peasants had little choice - they got what their lord provided. Asian warriors didn't really face serious armor. And renaissance warriors didn't either.
But in the days of heavy metal armor, you either had a sword (you were fairly wealthy) or you didn't.
If you had a sword, you used it in battle against unarmored foes. The speed and ease of incapacitating your enemy, with less energy spent on your part, made it the weapon of choice against unarmored (or lightly armored) opponents.
If you faced an armored foe, you broke out your mace/flail and bashed them to death inside their armor.
This, of course, doesn't help the D&D fighter when deciding with which weapon he is going to specialize. Fortunately for him, we have done away with 1st edition charts that increase/decrease the effectiveness of your weapon vs. various armor types.
Yes thats true, in the history of warfare the period of time where effective armor protection existed against available weapons was really short.
Effective armor didnt really appear until the dark ages and was gone basically by the end of it.
You can argue the helot armor system (breast plate, greaves, tower shield) waseffective armor, however it required a system of phalanx to work. It clearly wasnt all that great mono a mono.
Against an unarmored person the mace is going to hurt them severally even on a glancing blow, the sword is going to leave a gash, some bleeding and maybe leave your guts hanging out, but you still have guts, the mace gets you and you can kiss that area of your body good bye.
So really all blunt weapons should have their damaged raised to d10 or d12, because they're so awesome. And these wimpy edged weapons should be lowered to d4 or maybe d6 for a greatsword.
I don't have to hit you with force to cut you with a sword. The same tap with a mace will barely bruise you. Lemme ask you a question: when was the last time you got bruised, and when was the last time you got cut?
Against an unarmored person the mace is going to hurt them severally even on a glancing blow, the sword is going to leave a gash, some bleeding and maybe leave your guts hanging out, but you still have guts, the mace gets you and you can kiss that area of your body good bye.So really all blunt weapons should have their damaged raised to d10 or d12, because they're so awesome. And these wimpy edged weapons should be lowered to d4 or maybe d6 for a greatsword.
I don't have to hit you with force to cut you with a sword. The same tap with a mace will barely bruise you. Lemme ask you a question: when was the last time you got bruised, and when was the last time you got cut?
You can't compare apples to oranges.
Human skin vs. Steel plate or mail.
The chain mail was designed to stymie the sword, basically.
Plate, for a very long time stymie nearly everything. The tactic for defeating plate eventually became using a polearm to un horse the knight and having several guys with dirks shove the thin blades in around the neck and arm pits going for vitals.
The heavily armored unhorsed knight was a turtle on his back to the regulars on the ground in basically, clothes.
Eventually the crossbow, longbow and closer ranges and then finally the firearm/cannon totally made most armor (and especially heavy plate) obsolete by the ren-fair days.
(and for some reason armor got replaced with floppy hats with feathers and it being invouge to look like women and wear their shirts)
If you barely tap me with the sword I'll probably just take it from you :D
I make it a standard policy to not get hit by lethal weapons, however I do get paper cuts and random other bumps and bruise (and some rips) at work. What's your point? The cut isn't going to kill me any more than the bruise is going to.
I'm not saying that a sword is useless, just that the flanged mace gets a bum wrap and is much more lethal than people think, and much easier to use.
It's akin to a while back when everyone seemed to think that swords weight in at very large amounts. Just like then it simply isn't true.
If you faced an armored foe, you broke out your mace/flail and bashed them to death inside their armor.
The main reason is because hitting hard metal with the expensive sword will nick the edge, whereas the mace is cheap and nicks on the flanges don't matter. The mace does have a little mechanical advantage with more weight distributed on the business end, but it isn't as long as a sword which more or less cancels out that advantage.
The real weapon of the battlefield is the bill, halberd, and the like. Who cares if the blade gets nicked, grind it out after the battle.
The force of the nunchuck strike was as equally lethal as the .45 acp round. Period. I am confident in my mind that the FBI's analysis was far more indepth and took more things into consideration and had vastly more resources at their disposal than any of us from which to draw a hypothesis.
Their conclusion is the simply mechanic of the nunchuck was just as deadly as the bullet knon to be the "most effective manstopper" the .45 acp.
Ah, yes, this is why our emergency rooms are staffed by nunchuck wound specialists... no that would be bullet wound specialists. If the nunchuck doesn't hit you on the head, you aren't going to die. Again, it only takes a fraction of the bullet's energy to make an incapaciting wound, whereas it takes all the nunchuck's energy to do that.
I'd really like to see a citation on this mythical FBI analysis. Sounds like an urban legend to me, parallel to the old "katana cuts through machine gun barrel" myth.
The mecahnic of the flail and the nunchuck are identical, the the exception that instead of two handles, the flail has a war head on one side (and there for is used exactly the way the gang memebers in the 80s used the nunchuck)
Flail-men didn't have so much issue with the "bouce off affect" due to the fact that things like heads/necks tend to have thir own "give" when struck...
When you look at actual European flails the design either has a longer chain that goes slack after the hit, negating the slap-back effect of the short link in the nunchuck, or it has a longer handle so the head can't strike the wielder's hand.
I'd really like to see a citation on this mythical FBI analysis. Sounds like an urban legend to me, parallel to the old "katana cuts through machine gun barrel" myth.
you clearly watch far too much TV. Where this understanding of ideas like one bullet kills. Oh the ultimate killing power of the micro projectile.
Most of the vaunted killing power of the "slug thrower" comes from the civil war and post civil war era. Physicians beleived in amputations as the main source of saving someones life and were more butchers than doctors.
The era of bullets being uber dangerous ended with the forward field aid stations, surgical hospitals and training of field medics.
The bleed out of the wound, sepsis and tissue shock are the number oe killers of bullet wounds, all of these take considerable time.
With modern medicine (espeically in the civilian sector) the bullet wound is far far less leathal than ever.
During the eras were swords were used against shields and plate armor, they were not "sharp" was we understand knives. Swords like that did the majority of their damage from weight, shape and momentum.
The swords blade was forged with an "edge" not the honed cutting edge we come to be used to with todays utility knives. Ever buy one of those reproduction weapons from a catalouge? They pretty much have "accurate period" edges. the knife edge we are familiar with would blunt so badly it wouldnt be anything past the first two attacks.
Katanas were made completely differntly because metal armor was not something oreintal warriors came in contact with much.
The flail/mace and to some extent the hammer had great tactical advantges against the plate armors of the era because their inertia with a focused head served more to make the actual armor itself into the mechanic that damaged the wearer. Much like a modern car acident, the occupant of a vehicle is more often actually damaged by aportion of his own vehicle being distorted by the impact of the foreign vehicle rather than impact with the foreign vehicle (or weapon) itself.
Copy from website:
Nunchaku
This formidable weapon was used by the Okinawans to create distance and effectiveness against the Japanese Samurai sword. The shorter the hair or distance between the two sticks, the more power was generated. The effectiveness of Nunchakus creates over 2,000 pounds of square force. The nunchaku, commonly called "nun chucks" or "chucks" can be used as both an offensive and defensive weapon by using them to strike, jab or choke an attacker.
AND.....
It is interesting to observe that we are still arguing this basic question of terminal ballistics which was articulated by Thompson in 1904. The tag-team wrestling match in the terminal ballistics field is currently between Ed Sanow and Evan Marshall in the "small and fast" corner, and Dr. Martin Fackler (backed up by Thompson and LaGarde) in the "big and slow" corner. This discussion quickly degenerates into a lot of arcane mumbles about temporary and permanent crush cavities, energy transfer, hydrostatic shock, and the Miami FBI shoot-out. It's interesting if you're a physicist or a forensic pathologist, but it gets kind of academic for the rest of us. "Small and fast" works really well with high-powered rifles when their small 80 grain bullets are traveling at 4000 feet per second, but hand gun cartridges don't operate at those energy levels. The best of the small and fast pistol rounds is the 125 grain .357 Magnum which has enjoyed an impressive service record in the "one shot stop" statistics. It has also suffered some spectacular failures in which the bad guy was shot multiple times center of mass and remained on his feet.
Evan Marshall and Ed Sanow have worked up a set of statistics based on results of actual shootings in which one shot was fired into the torso of the attacker stopping the assault, and from these studies they have developed percentage ratings for "one shot stops" for cartridges from .22 to 12 gauge. The Marshall and Sanow numbers show a tendency for small and fast cartridges to do somewhat better than large and slow ones, i.e., .380's do slightly better than .38 Specials from 2" barrels and .357 Magnums do a percentage or so better than the .45 ACP. Understand that controversy still rages about the Marshall and Sanow study, particularly about their methods, sources of data, and the shootings they chose to exclude. Nevertheless, it's an interesting study.
Jim Higginbotham, a 30-year law enforcement veteran and trainer writes the following on the subject of pistol cartridges and failures to stop:
While I have come across some lethal encounters that took a lot of rounds to settle they mostly were the result of either poor hits (or complete misses) or lack of penetration. Nearly all of the high round count cases I have reviewed involved 9mms, .38s, .357’s or smaller calibers. This is not to say they do not occur with major caliber rounds. It is to say I have been collecting data for 30 years and have not encountered many cases in which multiple hits (more than three as two or three shots are a fairly normal reflex action) from major caliber cartridges to the center of the chest have not been sufficient, - the single exception being a case involving the .41 Magnum loaded with JSP bullets which did not expand - they did penetrate - it took five hits center mass to stop the attacker ......
It goes on and on..... Need less to say. I have spent the better part of my adult life in special operations in the military, I am well versed and read in the effectiveness of hand gun rounds, as well as hand to hand combat and hand held weapons and have been kept up on the reading and relevant materials since the late 1980s to recent times.
and let me just say, at point blank range Id take the nunchuck over the .45 any day of the week.
Just becuase you don't see alot of nunchuck deaths doesn't mean that nunchucks can't be lethal, it means more people own guns becuase the gun has several other advantages: Range, availability, intimidation factor, ease of use, et al.
Most of the vaunted killing power of the "slug thrower" comes from the civil war and post civil war era. Physicians beleived in amputations as the main source of saving someones life and were more butchers than doctors.
.50 to .80 caliber soft lead shattered bones and tore through flesh. No antibiotics => deep tissue infection and edema => grangrene => death was the expected course of events, if bleeding could be stopped at all. Only a "flesh wound," or when the bone could be cleanly set, was there any reasonable chance of healing before infection required amputation.
WW1 was predominantly copper jacketed rounds of ~.30 caliber, a horse of a different color. The wounds were more easily treated at the forward field aid stations and surgical hospitals. Add in the general acceptance of antiseptic theory to the medics' training and the comparison is apples-to-oranges.
During the eras were swords were used against shields and plate armor, they were not "sharp" was we understand knives. Swords like that did the majority of their damage from weight, shape and momentum.
The swords blade was forged with an "edge" not the honed cutting edge we come to be used to with todays utility knives. Ever buy one of those reproduction weapons from a catalouge? They pretty much have "accurate period" edges. the knife edge we are familiar with would blunt so badly it wouldnt be anything past the first two attacks.
Medieval period swords typically had a chisel-like edge (the razor-sharp grossmesser being a rare exception). Reproductions are usually rebated, that is, both flattened and thicker on the "edge" for heavy practice. As one who practiced metal on metal, on top of years of training, only this very square-edged basket hilt backsword was tough enough not to suffer serious damage. Four other blades from a variety of manufacturers got chewed up over a few months.
The flail/mace and to some extent the hammer had great tactical advantges against the plate armors of the era because their inertia with a focused head served more to make the actual armor itself into the mechanic that damaged the wearer.
The sword will do it just as well with proper technique. I'd tell you some stories, if time permitted, of what a rattan practice cudgel can do.
The effectiveness of Nunchakus creates over 2,000 pounds of square force.
I'm not sure what "square force" is, nor (after a bit of googling to the source) is that an FBI report... I'm always a bit skeptical about claims on websites like that. It isn't like they compare it to the impact force of a sword, or even a fist. Back in the 17th-18th century some English barefist champs would show off by punching the bark off trees.
and let me just say, at point blank range Id take the nunchuck over the .45 any day of the week
Yes, point blank is where the nunchuck can reach the opponent without having to close the distance, and in that case it is marginally better to have a gross-motor-skill hand weapon than a fine-motor-skill handgun. All depending on "other factors being equal" (skill of wielder vs skill of guy with the .45, etc). Me? I'd take the sword over the nunchucks any day of the week. =)
The original statement was the wound capacity/deadly effectiveness of the nunchuck was more so than the .45 ACP.
(The FBI Report is from the 1980s and is clearly not available on things like google, I looked for it, just isnt around anymore, nor is the common use of nunchucks in street gangs)
The nunchuck is effectively a flail. It's ancestry comes from the same ag-flail.
The report gave serveral instances where multiple rounds to center mass did not stop the "bad guy".
Multiple GI's retunring from Iraq qill tell you the same story.
Anyone who knows much about the development of the 6.8 spc round will definately tell you.
I my self have witnessed exactly the same thing.
However I have never seen, heard, or read anyone having a problem stopping someone with 5 hits from nunchucks, or a bat, or In my case one hit from a shovel ( a personal expereince).
I am not trained in shovel-kun-do.
The jist of the FBI report stated that the kinetic force delivered by a hand held "melee" weapon exceeds that of the "well known" killing power of the .45 acp. (in this case the nunchuck with it's 4,000 ft lbs of force.)
If you replaced the rounded handle of the nunchuck with an angular, heavier flail hea, the destructive force would be even greater from the same swing.
that was the point of the statement, Not which is better in which case, ranged or melee.
Also. I HAVE taken more than one bullet wound and kept on fighting. Point blank for a .45 pistol is about the best accurancy you are going to get.
And I know I would walk away from that fight being able to get myself to a hospital, the guy at the other end of the nunchucks would have to get carried in, if he made it at all.
Too many dang TV shows with bang your dead.
the ball and chain is ineffective because of too much weight on the ball, other than that its effectively a flail
|
|
A .45 ACP round has 350 ft-lb of energy. Perhaps if swung with wreckless abandon the nunchuck might match that, but after you hit your opponent it will bounce off and crack your knuckles or the hand bones. This is also a fairly common injury among nunchuckers.
Only with people that don't know how to use a nunchaku. Really one of the first things that's taught is how to avoid the nunchaku bouncing back uncontrolled.
A .45 ACP round has 350 ft-lb of energy. Perhaps if swung with wreckless abandon the nunchuck might match that, but after you hit your opponent it will bounce off and crack your knuckles or the hand bones. This is also a fairly common injury among nunchuckers.
Only with people that don't know how to use a nunchaku. Really one of the first things that's taught is how to avoid the nunchaku bouncing back uncontrolled.
In a real fight you can't control everything, and the opponent's movements often turn what you intended into something less than controlled.
It's like boxing. The proper way to hit protects you thumbs, but most boxers can't even button their own shirts because their thumbs have been broken so many times. The opponent is not a static target.
The original statement was the wound capacity/deadly effectiveness of the nunchuck was more so than the .45 ACP.
So why then did Japan arm their soldiers with lousy guns? Clearly they could've won WW2 if only they'd stayed true to their martial arts heritage and used nunchucks instead. Wait, nunchucks are Okinawan. The Japanese were foiled by their own cultural prejudice.
Another question for inquiring minds: why exactly was the FBI so worried about nunchucks that they would conduct the study and release the findings to the breathlessly awaiting public? And what happened since then to make the report disappear? Perhaps they formed an anti-nunchuck task force, and perhaps it was successful in purging the deadly rice flail from the streets of America. Saved again!
The report gave serveral instances where multiple rounds to center mass did not stop the "bad guy".
Multiple GI's retunring from Iraq qill tell you the same story.
Anyone who knows much about the development of the 6.8 spc round will definately tell you.
I my self have witnessed exactly the same thing.However I have never seen, heard, or read anyone having a problem stopping someone with 5 hits from nunchucks, or a bat, or In my case one hit from a shovel ( a personal expereince).
I am not trained in shovel-kun-do.
So you've conducted an exhaustive study of blunt weapon battery and can conclusively report that center of mass blows with clubs and nunchucks are more effective than CoM handgun hits? Again, I'd like to see that report.
"Data" is not the plural of "anecdote." I can tell you stories of guys who took devastating physical punishment and kept coming. They paid for it later with permanent injuries to knees, eyes, etc. But in the heat of the battle the pain wasn't quite enough to make them curl up and crawl away.
I know all about the development of the 6.8mm and ensuing controversy. The famous "FBI murders" case showed that many of the baddies had multiple hits that should've been incapacitating, but they stayed alive and kicking just long enough to pump a few rounds into the wounded FBI guys for a TPK.
That's reality. There is no "magic bullet."
The jist of the FBI report stated that the kinetic force delivered by a hand held "melee" weapon exceeds that of the "well known" killing power of the .45 acp. (in this case the nunchuck with it's 4,000 ft lbs of force.)
Oh, so now it's gone from "2000 pounds of square force" (still not sure what they really meant) to "4000 ft-lbs," ten times the energy of the .45 ACP and more energy than a 300 Win Mag? So now you'll tell me you'd rather hunt bear with a nunchuck than with a big game rifle?
Do tell, I really want to know where these statistics come from.
Also. I HAVE taken more than one bullet wound and kept on fighting. Point blank for a .45 pistol is about the best accurancy you are going to get.
And I know I would walk away from that fight being able to get myself to a hospital, the guy at the other end of the nunchucks would have to get carried in, if he made it at all.Too many dang TV shows with bang your dead.
Yes, as I said there is no magic bullet. That, and the body and will to live can be amazingly resilient. A bullet may pass right through without hitting anything vital. A bullet or nunchuck may hit something vital but it will take a bit of time before the victim knows he's done.
First of all.. Blunt weapons, edged weapons, and bullets all do completely different kinds of damage. Cuts from a slash of a sharp sword are dangerous due to severed muscle tissue and blood vessels. For the record loosing your people juice is bad. The wounds themselves do comparatively little damage and heal fairly easily. Piercing wounds unless they hit an organ.. Or as the English would say 'Its only a bloody flesh wound' do even less overall damage and bleed a bit less. Both of these types see some secondary contusion damage from kinetic transfer but not a hell of a lot. Blunt weapons cause massive trauma pulping tissues and tearing muscles over a large area they just tend to leave the skin more intact so you get subcutaneous hemorrhaging. It as just as bad bleeding into your skin as out and sometimes a good deal worse. Having done work at an EMT i can tell you. Take an orange and squeeze it till its liquid inside but dont break the peel Thats what blunt force trauma is. Take a knife and cut one.. That's your basic sword. Even with the less then knife edge on the old swords they still cut. Now we get to bullets.. The problem with bullets is once they get past out skin and muscle were really damn squishy and it doesn't take much to destroy or render useless our super useful insidey parts. Bullets are not designed nor have they ever been designed to do damage by putting a hole in you the size of the bullet itself they are meant to either deform and cause blunt trauma to your innarde or they break apart and send minute little buzz saws spilling through so much soft tissue. Bullets also can overpenetrate something no other weapon really does.. and blowthroughs rare transfer a lethal amount of kinetic energy. If you jam a pencil or even a pointy bit as thick as your thumb clear through your thigh it'll hurt like blue blazes but all things considered its not all that damaging unless you hit a vein, nerve, or sever a tendon. If you slice yourself open with a sword.. The severity is dependent mostly on how many veins and how much muscle was severed. The blunt weapon will pop all the little cells in your body like mini water balloons and listen to the EMT when those wounds get bad.. There is *nothing* we can really do to help.. We can stitch and close holes through various means but the *massive* amount of destroyed tissues caused by blunt damage is obscene. Also we can reattach parts sometimes with a clean cut.. We cant do that if it was turned to paste
So here is the breakdown
Swords: Getting cut is bad. Stabbed is worse if its close to the middle and better if its not.
Blunts: Glancing blows not as bad.. You get a bruise but if it connects the hard way ? Well.. We've all seen Ghallager and the Sledge-o-Matic and people are distressingly near watermelons in design.
Bullets: There are to many bullets to many cartridges and to many guns to really really say much hard and fast here but it can either be much better or much worse then either of the above.
Oh.. as a side note.. The millitary used guns for these reasons.
1: Range
2: Ease of use it takes much less strength endurance and training to injure with a gun then a melee weapon
3:production costs bullets are cheap
4: and finally.. Non kill shots.. You kill a man you remove 1 threat.. You unjure him you remove him and the man that carries him away.
Call me slow on the uptake if you like, but what purpose is all this overwrought analysis of real-world weaponry supposed to achieve?
Call me slow on the uptake if you like, but what purpose is all this overwrought analysis of real-world weaponry supposed to achieve?
talking about the effectiveness of the flail is how it started.
Basically flail vs. plate armor.
Since I didn't have any "real world" numbers of flail damage. I used the nunchuck (which is quite similar) as a basis as I remembered the "4,000 ft lbs" of energy from an FBI report I read.
Siting it as a basis to why the flail was more useful vs. plate armor than say a sword.
The flail with it's flanges and spikes, is able to take that same mechanical/kinteic energy and concentrate the force of that blow into a smaller area, therefor multiplying the effect and deforming the armor.
For the chain mails out there, they were designed to stop the cutting effect of swords, which they do great, but the flail causes the mail to deform with it, largely allowing most of the flails blunt forces trauma to still expend on to/into the targets body.
Against a nude/unarmored opponent the dynamics are completely different, and obviously the edged weapon is much more effective, as they are also lighter and require less human energy to weild.
.45 Acp was brought in as a comparative example (again for lack of ballistics reports on arrows or dagger strikes) as it transfers 350 ft lbs of force to the human body upon impact (significantly less than the nunchucks)
However it's peircing effect, wound channel and likelyhood to cause continuing bleeding are a completely different form of injury.
Both the firearm and the flail were completely capable of damaging a man wearing plate armor.
Swords, not so much.