StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I watch it just to see the effects of weapons on armour and simulated bodies and the occasional pseudo-debunking of certain wankers(cough Ninjas and Samurai). It shows that good old straightforward weapons and shield are better than any fancy crap.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Albeit spammy, but there's also Clint Eastwood's example in For A Fistfull of Dollars. Also replicated by Marty McFly in one of the Back to the Futures.

How good is the penetration on those pirate flintlocks and muskets, anyway? I get that they can kill an unarmored man dead in close ranges, but it's pretty much a metal ball being propelled by black powder in a metal tube, right? A bit like a smaller, nastier potato gun? With those bits we see in movies, where musket shots to the heart are blocked by books and Bibles worn in breast pockets or even shots from miniature cannonettes blocked by cigarillo boxes (like in Blackadder ), if these are in anyway even remotely true, then armoring that can withstand getting stabbed by swords or shot at by nasty arrows might be pretty good for (crappy) muskets too!

Not to mention, a pirate might be all diseased and dehydrated and full of drinking his own urine and getting scurvy after sailing for forever, whereas a knight would be well-fed and well-sexed by peasant wenches due to the wonders of a feudal lifestyle! Having only one eye, and wearing an eyepatch, would do wonders for depth perception and aiming too!

Thats pretty much all bullshit Shroom. Mind you it depends on how much powder you use but 30 grains is more then enough to blow through a Bible.

PeZook wrote:

Elfdart wrote: I was amused that the unarmored horse wasn't bothered at all. Which reminds me: any sensible person would shoot the charging horse out from under the knight, then finish him off at point-blank range while he's trying to get up.

You'd be surprised how quickly a plate-armored knight can get up.

After being thrown by a charging horse? With a good chance of being pinned to the ground by 700kg or more of dead horse? Armor or no armor, when you get thrown by a galloping horse you don't just hop back on your feet except in carefully staged stunts in movies or at rodeos.

PeZook wrote:I assumed Elfdart meant the stereotypical full plate armored knight, since that's who people usually imagine when somebody (incorrectly) tells them they could barely move.

I mentioned before that depending on the era, you could get a knight armed similarly or much better than a random pirate fuckface. For example, a XVIIth century knight would not only be decently armored, but also armed with various firearms, which would in addition be of way better quality than what a pirate could afford.

Horsemen (whether armed with lances, swords or firearms) who got their mounts shot out from under them during an attack were often finished off by lowly "fuckfaces" armed with crude weapons.

Elfdart wrote: After being thrown by a charging horse? With a good chance of being pinned to the ground by 700kg or more of dead horse? Armor or no armor, when you get thrown by a galloping horse you don't just hop back on your feet except in carefully staged stunts in movies or at rodeos.

It depends on skill and more than just a bit of luck, yes. Also, there's no guarantee a pistol shot will stop a horse dead, either: it's a big animal.

Elfdart wrote: Horsemen (whether armed with lances, swords or firearms) who got their mounts shot out from under them during an attack were often finished off by lowly "fuckfaces" armed with crude weapons.

Yes, they were. The point is that, since all combat is a game of probabilities, an armored knight armed with good quality firearms has a vastly higher chance of killing an unarmored pirate armed with low-quality firearms.

And why does knight automatically equal horseman? They could fight dismounted just fine.

Elfdart wrote:

Knife wrote:See, I'd love a Samurai V Knight but...

Given that they had to nerf the Viking just to give the Samurai a squeaker of a marginal victory, it would be a laugher even by Spike TV's standards.

Anyone else think that that marginal victory was only doled out just to give some form of appeasement for the drooling "Samurais win against everything because OMG KATANAS AND ZOMG JAPANBISHIDOHONOR!" crowd? Then again, the one credit I'm willing to give this show is that, at the very least, it showed a katana doing jack shit against chain mail.

Seriously, the most annoying argument the katana-wankers always throw out in Samurai versus <insert European warrior class here> has always been that the Samurai were so extremely disciplined and had HONOR and kinghts/Vikings/whatever are just a bunch of thugs with swords and armor, even more than the "katana are superior in every way" crap. Not one of them seems to realize that to fight with anything approaching half-decency with armor and ALL European close combat weapons, you need to be trained damn well else you'll end up stabbing, cutting, and/or beaning yourself.

Any one of them ever tried swinging a morningstar using proper technique? Someone tried to teach me once using a blunted reproduction, but I only ever did the motions at the slowest speeds. That thing is damned intimidating, and I'd be surprised if any "untrained thug" trying to swing it wildly didn't kill himself in seconds. You'd need training to even know how not to kill yourself, let alone fight well with it.

Plus wasn't the Samurai "honor" mostly the "Live and win or kill yourself" kind instead of a more classical definition of honor?

Meest wrote:I watch it just to see the effects of weapons on armour and simulated bodies and the occasional pseudo-debunking of certain wankers(cough Ninjas and Samurai). It shows that good old straightforward weapons and shield are better than any fancy crap.

Funny thing is, both the Samurai and Spartan couldn't penetrate each other's armor with their weapons, something they did a direct test on both. The Naginata barely put a dent in the Spartan Armor, and the Samurai armor not only held against the Spartan's spear, but bent it too.

The one thing I think they got completely right is that the Spartan's win was primarily because the Samurai had no real counter to the shield (except maybe if he could've broken his arm with the club).

Also not surprised he beat the Ninja. It was, after all, a fair fight.

And does anyone else find it funny that, of the dozen or so IRA weapons they showed laid out on the table, one of the ones they used for the evaluation was the slingshot? You can just see how the planning of that episode played out: "Dude, they used slingshots? We gotta add that in!"

PeZook wrote:

Elfdart wrote: After being thrown by a charging horse? With a good chance of being pinned to the ground by 700kg or more of dead horse? Armor or no armor, when you get thrown by a galloping horse you don't just hop back on your feet except in carefully staged stunts in movies or at rodeos.

It depends on skill and more than just a bit of luck, yes. Also, there's no guarantee a pistol shot will stop a horse dead, either: it's a big animal.

It doesn't have to kill the horse outright to either throw the rider (which in and of itself can leave the rider dead or incapacitated) or to crash and burn -something that frequently happens when a horse is wounded while running.

Elfdart wrote: Horsemen (whether armed with lances, swords or firearms) who got their mounts shot out from under them during an attack were often finished off by lowly "fuckfaces" armed with crude weapons.

Yes, they were. The point is that, since all combat is a game of probabilities, an armored knight armed with good quality firearms has a vastly higher chance of killing an unarmored pirate armed with low-quality firearms.

And why does knight automatically equal horseman? They could fight dismounted just fine.

I was talking about the scenario in the show. That knight didn't have a gun of any kind, but he did charge (on horseback) the pirate on the beach, who blasted him with his blunderbuss and some kind of grenade. The horse wasn't injured at all while the knight was knocked to the ground. I was pointing out that taking out the horse would be easier and would have a good chance of taking out the rider with it (whether directly or indirectly) .

Don't take too much stock in the way the fights are shown. It seems their primary purpose is to show each of the warrior's/faction's weapons in action. That's why squad-vs-squad battles always come down to the last soldier on each side.

Oscar Wilde wrote:Plus wasn't the Samurai "honor" mostly the "Live and win or kill yourself" kind instead of a more classical definition of honor?

It was based in the idea of complete loyalty to one's master.

If you master told you to win a fight, to lose it was to fail him and therefore lose your honour.

Elfdart wrote:

PeZook wrote:

Elfdart wrote: After being thrown by a charging horse? With a good chance of being pinned to the ground by 700kg or more of dead horse? Armor or no armor, when you get thrown by a galloping horse you don't just hop back on your feet except in carefully staged stunts in movies or at rodeos.

It depends on skill and more than just a bit of luck, yes. Also, there's no guarantee a pistol shot will stop a horse dead, either: it's a big animal.

It doesn't have to kill the horse outright to either throw the rider (which in and of itself can leave the rider dead or incapacitated) or to crash and burn -something that frequently happens when a horse is wounded while running.

Elfdart wrote: Horsemen (whether armed with lances, swords or firearms) who got their mounts shot out from under them during an attack were often finished off by lowly "fuckfaces" armed with crude weapons.

Yes, they were. The point is that, since all combat is a game of probabilities, an armored knight armed with good quality firearms has a vastly higher chance of killing an unarmored pirate armed with low-quality firearms.

And why does knight automatically equal horseman? They could fight dismounted just fine.

I was talking about the scenario in the show. That knight didn't have a gun of any kind, but he did charge (on horseback) the pirate on the beach, who blasted him with his blunderbuss and some kind of grenade. The horse wasn't injured at all while the knight was knocked to the ground. I was pointing out that taking out the horse would be easier and would have a good chance of taking out the rider with it (whether directly or indirectly) .

The 'nade was done pretty poor in the fight as well. By the time the pirate found his grenade, time to light it, trow it to the knight and the time between explosion, the knight could have galopped into another country. I'm sure the grenade was effective to trow at the ship you're about to board but against a charging knight out into the open? Give me a break.

wautd wrote:
The 'nade was done pretty poor in the fight as well. By the time the pirate found his grenade, time to light it, trow it to the knight and the time between explosion, the knight could have galopped into another country. I'm sure the grenade was effective to trow at the ship you're about to board but against a charging knight out into the open? Give me a break.

Not to mention the hilarity of the knight falling off the horse towards the explosion.

I just watched pirates vs. knights, it was awesome. I really didn't expect the pirate to win. Now I'm REALLY looking forward to Attila vs. Alexander tomorrow

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I just watched pirates vs. knights, it was awesome. I really didn't expect the pirate to win. Now I'm REALLY looking forward to Attila vs. Alexander tomorrow

What's next? Hitler vs. Stalin? Now that would be interesting. Hitler served as an infantryman in WW1, but mostly as a runner. He still had to use his weapon fairly often, though. Stalin on the other hand was an experienced bank robber and was used to handling the tools of the trade. It is also likely that he killed some people during the robberies. Both have sociopathic tendencies, so killing the other guy would not be a problem for them.

We will give Hitler a Mauser G98 rifle and Stalin a Mauser C-96 pistol with a 10 round magazine, which unfortunately is not a Russian weapon, but nevertheless favored by many bolsheviks. Giving him a Nagant M1895 revolver would be too unfair, but we still want them to have something familiar from their youth. In any case, this is my guess:

If the combat starts at long ranges and there is no significant cover, Hitler will probably win. On the other hand if the combat starts at close quarters or the terrain allows Stalin to get close, things get more interesting. Stalin may actually have more experience than Hitler in close quarters shootouts, since as a runner Hitler did not sit in the trenches that much. The C-96 is also a more handy weapon, it's semi-automatic and has a larger magazine. On the other hand the G98 with a fixed bayonet is a much more formidable melee weapon. Really difficult to see how it would turn out.

Yes, we really got to have Hitler vs. Stalin! Do they take suggestions at Spike TV?

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I just watched pirates vs. knights, it was awesome. I really didn't expect the pirate to win. Now I'm REALLY looking forward to Attila vs. Alexander tomorrow

He shouldn't have. Pirate pistols were absolute shit. The blunderbuss had a significant misfire chance even under ideal conditions and he only gets one chance before he gets run down.

Attila vs. Alexander... hmmmm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Attila vs. Alexander... hmmmm

Overweight man with health problems vs Macedonian King who regularly lead cavalry charges....

Of course, I bet this will be the Gerard Butler version of Attila.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

CaptainChewbacca wrote:I just watched pirates vs. knights, it was awesome. I really didn't expect the pirate to win. Now I'm REALLY looking forward to Attila vs. Alexander tomorrow

He shouldn't have. Pirate pistols were absolute shit. The blunderbuss had a significant misfire chance even under ideal conditions and he only gets one chance before he gets run down.

Attila vs. Alexander... hmmmm

I think the pirate shot the knight with 3 or 4 different pistols, and the only one that did damage was point-blank through an open visor.

Well the Attila v. Alexander one was the first one to make me groan about stupidity over entertainment. A siege weapon in a one on one fight? It would've been better if they had some representation of his tactics as a special weapon choice, or at least give him a regular sword and shield for his rank/riches. Then a heavy crossbow that's more like man portable artillery it was just silly.

That just sceams, Black Adder to me.

Yeah, I think Alexander got screwed in this one. I know they want to show different sorts of weapons each episode so that we can watch different gel dummies die in similar, but not 100% the same ways, but really a balista and the heavy crossbow? I would have rather seen him gimped like the viking with a shield taking up a weapon slot and a pilum as a ranged weapon. I also thought it was laughable that Alexander's better armor wasn't tested aside from his helmet and how much they wanked the horse bow. Oh well, we all know how it really should have gone, if Alexander had a shield and a not retarded ranged weapon he would have won even if Attila was shown to be some paragon of health.

Wait they didn't test the bronze cuirass? But I thought they tested Atilla's lamellar armor against Alexander's weapons?

General Schatten wrote:Wait they didn't test the bronze cuirass? But I thought they tested Atilla's lamellar armor against Alexander's weapons?

The tested Alexander's helmet, and Atilla's armor, nothing noted about Alexander's cuirass. I expect that, given the bias of the episode, Attila would have been wanked as able to snipe exposed parts anyway.

Norade wrote:

General Schatten wrote:Wait they didn't test the bronze cuirass? But I thought they tested Atilla's lamellar armor against Alexander's weapons?

The tested Alexander's helmet, and Atilla's armor, nothing noted about Alexander's cuirass. I expect that, given the bias of the episode, Attila would have been wanked as able to snipe exposed parts anyway.

I have an odd feeling that the simulation program has a "Who the producers have determined will win" term.

Alyrium Denryle wrote:I have an odd feeling that the simulation program has a "Who the producers have determined will win" term.

I figured that when they announced "SWAT vs. GSG-9"...

Alexander's spear from horseback went through Attila's lamellar armour and a body with the tip penetrating the back. Don't remember which "expert" was on for that test, think one had some type of competition experience but for the most part they are actors. The kopis test seemed weak also but looked to be the rider just sucking, but I guess they already tested the xiphos. Anyone know how horseback archers did against cavalry?