This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Were hammers really even effective?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
Well since you are acting like Axes did nothing...yes, they are just theories. Axes were effective weapons, even against men in plate, since a battle axe was still a large scale edged weapon that would cause massive trauma even to those wearing the armour...since you know, that's still a massive piece of metal slamming into another piece of metal, and human are slightly pathetic water sacks that don't take that kind of impact well.
Post by
Lordplatypus
we are only 75% water are we not?
Axes glancing off is mere physics, they impact straight at the area where their center of gravity is, and against a hard surface, would likely glance off, not even transfering all the kinetic energy.
A flanged mace or hammer gets around that problem.
human are slightly pathetic water sacks that don't take that kind of impact well.
Armor isn't just "metal plate you wear" it's designed to spread impact too. I'm simply saying axes weren't effective weapons in any scenario other than based on cost.
EDIT: Here i'll explain
An axe is a homemade fertilizer bomb, an hammer is a HEAT missile and a Sword is a regular High Explosive shell.
Post by
Adamsm
Doesn't matter if it's designed to spread an impact; a bullet proof vest does the same, but the person still takes trauma from the fact that there were just hit by a fast moving projectile.
Same thing occurs with someone struck by an axe; you will take damage, it's really fairly simple. You won't lose a limb...or at least, as long as it's not hit in the wrong spot, since there were quite a few of those. And mind, when we say axes, we aren't talking about hatchets or hand axes, we are talking about actual weapons.
Post by
Lordplatypus
They wouldn't cause "Massive" trauma. They'd cause a bit of a impact, but nothing major compared to what else you'd expect.
The idea an axeman can simply batter a armored man to the ground is improbable, as the impact would be more of a "Shove" than a "Hit" due to the design of the armor. That and aforementione glancing off.
What I'm saying here is that Ryjacork's notion that axes were some sort of uberweapon that could penetrate armor and cut knights in half lengthwise is absurd. Armor was effective until the invention of the gun, the only other weapons that could reliably kill an armored knight were grappling with a short sword, a Zweihander or other longsword held in half-sword or reverse grip (Holding the sword by the blade and using the hilt as a hammer), a pick, poleweapon (If it hits properly) or blunt impact weapon like a flanged mace, warhammer, or maul.
Post by
Gone
What I'm saying here is that Ryjacork's notion that axes were some sort of uberweapon that could penetrate armor and cut knights in half lengthwise is absurd.
I absolutely never said anything like that. In fact I think you were the one who said:
Axes never were used to "Great Effect" they were less effective than stormtroopers with BB guns going up against hulkified cyborg superman.
Not to mention that you compared the difference between an ax and a sword with the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting bolt action rifle? Really? It's more like comparing a semi automatic handgun with a revolver. Neither is better or worse than the other, they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Are you really trying to get us to believe that an ax, the concentrated weight of which would add a great deal of power to the strike through building up velocity when swung, would glance off plate armor, but a sword, which is both lighter, and gains no real momentum through thrusting, would just pierce through?
Dude, just stop trying to lecture us about history and physics when you blatantly don't know anything about either.
Post by
Lordplatypus
Not to mention that you compared the difference between an ax and a sword with the difference between an assault rifle and a hunting bolt action rifle? Really? It's more like comparing a semi automatic handgun with a revolver. Neither is better or worse than the other, they both have their advantages and disadvantages.
Actually a Semiauto pistol would have a faster rate of fire, be easier to reload and overall be more effective but is generally more expensive, and take more skill to use.
So yes. You are right.
Are you really trying to get us to believe that an ax, the concentrated weight of which would add a great deal of power to the strike through building up velocity when swung, would glance off plate armor, but a sword, which is both lighter, and gains no real momentum through thrusting, would just pierce through?
Yes I am saying that a Sword, with a sharp point would penetrate the small weakspots on the opponent's armor would be more effective than an axe, which has no such sharp long point and relies on just bludgeoning the opponent with a sharp stick.
Post by
Gone
Actually a Semiauto pistol would have a faster rate of fire, be easier to reload and overall be more effective but is generally more expensive, and take more skill to use.
Once again you reveal your ignorance. A semi auto pistol is faster to load and holds more ammunition, but that's about it. A revolver is more reliable and depending on the barrel length, more accurate when dealing with high caliber rounds. Furthermore, if a semi auto pistol jams you have to clear the chamber, where as with a revolver you just have to pull the trigger again. And for the record, revolvers tend to be more expensive, but also less likely to break.
And btw, the record for speed shooting is held by Ed McGivern, for 5 shots from a revolver in 0.56 seconds. I don't know where you got it in your head that semi autos shoot faster, but considering that you've pulled most of the rest of your points out of your ass it shouldn't surprise me.
Post by
asakawa
I'm just gonna slot some green in here to remind people that this discussion could be far more fruitful and enjoyable if they stopped getting stuck on relative irrelevancies and hammering on them until insults flow like the blood of the vanquished.
^_^
So, to the topic, how about some video recreations to see how weapons fare against plate:
http://youtu.be/WqCM68-UoUA
- hammer on plate
http://youtu.be/gcDCMhyOLAc
- this guy's creepy and the quality of the program is poor but it's on topic.
http://youtu.be/boioSxBIkfk
- and some chit-chat about axes.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lordplatypus
A semi auto pistol is faster to load and holds more ammunition, but that's about it. A revolver is more reliable and depending on the barrel length, more accurate when dealing with high caliber rounds. Furthermore, if a semi auto pistol jams you have to clear the chamber, where as with a revolver you just have to pull the trigger again. And for the record, revolvers tend to be more expensive, but also less likely to break.
Eyup, you once again prove your information is based on myth over fact.
A Revolver's round engages the rifling later than a Pistol's, the bullet has to exit the cylinder and forcing cone before engaging the rifling, hence making it less accurate.
The record of speed shooting is based on how fast a man can pull a trigger, not what gun he's using. Revolvers are indeed cheaper due to the lower amounts of moving parts.
So yes, once again, you remain as uninformed and pompous as ever.
http://youtu.be/WqCM68-UoUA
- hammer on plate
I just have one note about this.
note he refers the hammer end of the poleaxe as the "Buisness" end.
I'll just leave that there and use it as proof that the point i was proving, hammers were used because they beat up armored types good is true.
Secondly, armour, even plate armour is the attackers second weapon. If I hit your armour hard enough to deform it, or pierce it, that dent, or if I'm lucky, jagged edges, will remain in the wound, compounding the damage if the injury. If I hit you in the plated chest with an axe, hammer, or bodkin tipped arrow, hard enough to dent it, you will at the very least, be unable to breathe properly for the remainder of the fight.
If you hit it that hard, they'd be on their ass with broken ribs already.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##So yes, once again, you remain as uninformed and pompous as ever.
This is an example of what I was hoping to subtly avoid. I'm being deadly serious now, any more of this and you're done with this thread.
Post by
Gone
A Revolver's round engages the rifling later than a Pistol's, the bullet has to exit the cylinder and forcing cone before engaging the rifling, hence making it less accurate.
No.
The record for speed shooting is based on how fast Ana can pull a trigger.and since a human being can't pull a trigger fast enough to outperform the pistols firing mechanism, semi autos don't fire any faster than revolvers.
Revolvers are indeed cheaper due to the lower amounts of moving parts.
No.
you remain as uninformed and pompous as ever.lol you have no idea how much this made me laugh. You have been making stuff up this whole debate and everybody knows it. Do you know anything about history or physics? Have you ever even owned a firearm? Have you posted anything to substantiate your inane ramblings? Clearly I'm the uninformed one. And if I come off as pompous it's because I'm dumbfounded by your posts.
Post by
Lordplatypus
No.
So they don't have to go through the process I described? How so?
and since a human being can't pull a trigger fast enough to outperform the pistols firing mechanism, semi autos don't fire any faster than revolvers.
Actually, an average person will fire faster with the lighter trigger of a semiauto.
Try Again.
No.
You can ask any person woh knows their way around guns, a revolver is cheaper than a semiauto.
Post by
Monday
You can ask any person woh knows their way around guns, a revolver is cheaper than a semiauto.
Wrong
Post by
Lordplatypus
I'd rather not trust one of those "Ask X" sites and rather rely on people who talk about this subject constantly.
They'll tell you a custom made handgun costs more than a custom made revolver.
Post by
Monday
I'd rather not trust one of those "Ask X" sites and rather rely on people who talk about this subject constantly.
So look on any of those gun forums it linked. Revolvers cost more than semi autos.
They'll tell you a custom made handgun costs more than a custom made revolver.
You didn't say anything before about custom parts. You merely said revolver vs. semi auto.
Also, I want to see proof on your claim that revolvers are cheaper than semi autos. Show me.
Post by
asakawa
You wanna talk about guns. Make a thread for it.
I can engage in the esoterica of talking about ancient weaponry and armour but guns are personally boring to me while also being way off topic for this thread.
Post by
Gone
As to the original question, I think we can reach a majority here that yes, hammers were effective weapons.(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##I've edited this and removed 2 other off-topic posts.
If you would like to talk about specific moderation decisions please contact rather than raising queries within the moderated thread. Thanks.
Post by
207044
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
978011
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.