Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Cased vs. Caseless Ammunition
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Kanada Ten
The secret is to get rid of the barrel and put little wings on the bullets. Then no one can identify the gun! And I can call these babies pigs. Selling 'em for a million bucks, right here, right now.
Raygun
QUOTE (KarmaInferno)
Oh, and to avoid rifling marks on the bullet, use APDS/SLAP ammo. =)

And don't forget to pick up all the sabots between you and the target with the rifling marks imbedded in them.
Shrapnel
QUOTE (Raygun)
QUOTE (KarmaInferno)
Oh, and to avoid rifling marks on the bullet, use APDS/SLAP ammo. =)

And don't forget to pick up all the sabots between you and the target with the rifling marks imbedded in them.

Don't you guys know you're supposed to use bullets made out of ice, or frozen hamburger?!?

Trust me on this, I saw it on TV... wink.gif
Kremlin KOA
or replace the barrel every job
bustedkarma
Frangible Ammunition....No Slug, No Evidence
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...s/frangible.htm

http://www.corbon.com/
Glaser "Saftey" Slug FTW.
Austere Emancipator
I hope that was sarcasm.

QUOTE (Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness @ www.thegunzone.com/quantico-wounding.html)
All handgun wounds will combine the components of penetration, permanent cavity, and temporary cavity to a greater or lesser degree. Fragmentation, on the other hand, does not reliably occur in handgun wounds due to the relatively low velocities of handgun bullets. Fragmentation occurs reliably in high velocity projectile wounds (impact velocity in excess of 2000 feet per second) inflicted by soft or hollow point bullets. [...]
Since the highest handgun velocities generally do not exceed 1400-1500 feet per second (fps) at the muzzle, reliable fragmentation could only be achieved by constructing a bullet so frangible as to eliminate any reasonable penetration. Unfortunately, such a bullet will break up too fast to penetrate to vital organs. The best example is the Glaser Safety Slug, a projectile designed to break up on impact and generate a large but shallow temporary cavity. Fackler, when asked to estimate the survival time of someone shot in the front mid-abdomen with a Glaser slug, responded, "About three days, and the cause of death would be peritonitis."
KarmaInferno
Shotguns would work. Not a whole lot of rifling to be had there.

Plus with custom handloads it'd be impossible to trace even by trying to track ammo sales of that type.

I saw the results of a custom load once where the crazed hand-loader had taken a short 3/8 inch bolt with the head cut off, surrounded it with thin finishing nails, and stuffed the whole affair with a carrier of some sort into a shotshell. The ham steak he shot this at was quite dead.

I imagine this tore up the shotgun barrel something fierce, though.


-karma
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Raygun)
And don't forget to pick up all the sabots between you and the target with the rifling marks imbedded in them.

Has there been any figures published on how far away from the firing point the sabots tend to fall?

I would say replace the sabots with a biodegradable substitute, but I understand handloading those suckers makes for very inaccurate ammo unless you do it perfectly.


-karma
bustedkarma
QUOTE (Sales Quote from Cor-Bon...who Emancipator DOES NOT endorse in any way. At All. EVER. )
http://mysite.elixirlabs.com/index.php?uid=12665&page=1980

The Safety Slug was extensively tested by the sky marshal service during the 70's and 80's. They were convinced that the GLASER had the most effective stopping power at close range, with the least likely hood of structural damage. Glaser is an excellent choice for any situation where there are a large number of people; where the danger of a ricochet hitting someone is great; or when a bullet passing through interior walls is a concern.


OK, I see what your source is saying, and it makes sense. The Glaser round, is more or less, a Gel Round is SR terminology. Not designed to Richochet or Zip through your target, and clip someone in the backround, like that nice elderly woman.

So while I was off base about using Frag Ammo as a feasible "evidence free" load for Shadowrunners, it isn't without it's application.
stevebugge
Interesting, seems like I'm the only one who Houseruled the other way:

There is no Caseless Ammo.

This was done mostly for game flavor I like the visuals of shell casings littering the ground after a fire fight. It actually grew out of a player contradicting me in the middle of a post fire fight description, nothing will get you an unfavorable house rule in my games faster than interrupting GM expository.

There are some other benefits. It also makes the characters a little more careful about using their guns. It also gives you a reason to use a revolver other than "it just looks cool".
Kagetenshi
Not really. Brass-catchers aren't particularly complex.

~J
Birdy
QUOTE (Vaevictis)
QUOTE (Crusher Bob)
Actually, a well cared for mueseum piece might be a better choice. It's quite hard to find a 'combat ready' edged weapon with a blade of over, say, 1 foot. A lost of the craft of swordmkaing has been lost.


Buy a Japanese sword, and you won't have that problem. Having exited feudal times only 150 years ago or so does have *some* advantages; swordcrafting is among them. smile.gif

Actually you might want to buy something superior. Like a european cavalry saber. Blades have been in use with cavalry units up to the Krimean war, maybe even up to the US Civil and Indian wars.

And there are still some <add insults> persons running around called "Burschenschaftler" who, when not being chased by <add praise> students actually hack at each other using sharpened blades.

So blademaking (at least sabers) is still an active industry in Europe.
Austere Emancipator
bustedkarma: Could you fix that quote? I don't want people to think I'd actually quote an ammo sales pitch by COR-BON, other than to make fun of it. smile.gif
bustedkarma
Corrected Sir.
Austere Emancipator
Thanks. biggrin.gif
stevebugge
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
Not really. Brass-catchers aren't particularly complex.

~J

No they aren't. In fact you could probably make one with a sandwich bag and a rubberband, but most of the time things like brass catchers get overlooked by my players, which I only moderately penalize them for, again because I like firefight scenes to be littered with casings (I guess I just enjoyed the Matrix a little too much)
Platinum
QUOTE (stevebugge @ Apr 5 2006, 01:39 PM)
QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Apr 5 2006, 08:29 AM)
Not really. Brass-catchers aren't particularly complex.

~J

No they aren't. In fact you could probably make one with a sandwich bag and a rubberband, but most of the time things like brass catchers get overlooked by my players, which I only moderately penalize them for, again because I like firefight scenes to be littered with casings (I guess I just enjoyed the Matrix a little too much)

They also make pulling a gun out of a holster a pain, would not always stay on and possibly increase concealability.
Vaevictis
QUOTE (Kanada Ten)
The secret is to get rid of the barrel and put little wings on the bullets. Then no one can identify the gun! And I can call these babies pigs. Selling 'em for a million bucks, right here, right now.

I think these things are called "gyrogets", right? (I'm no expert, but I see no reason a gyrojet would need rifling...)
Vaevictis
QUOTE (Birdy)
QUOTE (Vaevictis @ Apr 4 2006, 05:27 AM)

Actually you might want to buy something superior. Like a european cavalry saber. Blades have been in use with cavalry units up to the Krimean war, maybe even up to the US Civil and Indian wars.

Hmm. My understanding was that the cavalry blades used in the past ... 150-200 years or so were (for the most part) all very cheap, very shoddy shadows of the stuff that used to be done in Europe.
mfb
i'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the idea that most swords, regardless of their culture of origin, are just swords. nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of a thousand who get in a swordfight aren't going to win or lose because of the quality of their weapon.
Kremlin KOA
butbutbutbutbut

Katanas are KEWL because they are NINJA so they havve to have better stats
KEWL IS good like Thor shotting civilians
eidolon
QUOTE (Platinum)
They also make pulling a gun out of a holster a pain, would not always stay on and possibly increase concealability.

Possibly?

smile.gif
Raygun
QUOTE (KarmaInferno)
Has there been any figures published on how far away from the firing point the sabots tend to fall?

Yes. The 8th edition of Cartridges of the World covers Remington's Accelerator loads (.30-06, .308, and .30-30 Win using 55 grain .224" SPs) and says that the sabots usually clear the bullet at about 14 inches from the muzzle and are found anywhere from 40-100 feet downrange. So inside of a few meters there's even a good possibility that the sabot could get caught up in the target's clothing.

QUOTE
I would say replace the sabots with a biodegradable substitute, but I understand handloading those suckers makes for very inaccurate ammo unless you do it perfectly.

I'd say just don't depend on sabots to keep you from getting pinched. If you have to shoot someone, get rid of the gun, then go find your fixer and buy a new one. Or just buy several when you have to buy them and pitch as necessary.

QUOTE (Platinum)
[Brass catchers] also make pulling a gun out of a holster a pain, would not always stay on and possibly increase concealability.

hehehe.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (mfb)
i'd like to take this opportunity to introduce the idea that most swords, regardless of their culture of origin, are just swords. nine hundred and ninety-nine people out of a thousand who get in a swordfight aren't going to win or lose because of the quality of their weapon.

There is a video somewhere of an incident on the Shop at Home Knife Collector's show in which the host regails the audience with wild tales of how strong and sturdy this piece-'o-shit Pakastani sword while at the same time the tip of the sword breaks off and flys into his eye.

Yes, the quality of your blade does matter. It matters greatly. Crappy steel in a sword means that the sword is very likely to fail just as rappy steel in a skscraper means that the skyscraper is likely to collapse. One should not underestimate the ammount of torque a sword blade has to endure during the course of use.

Likewise, the design of the sword also matters. Swords are about as diverse as people are. You have big stords you have little swords. You have cutting swords and you have stabbing swords. A ninty-eight pound weakling will probably lose if he tries to wield a giant Conan Sword in battle even if he is a master fencer. Despite the fact that Sahdowrun lumps all sharp things into one catagory it is very easy to be a master of one type of sword and clueless with another. Different swords are wielded different ways and certain ways of wielding a sword are far more effective in combat than any other. Light thrusting blades are generally superior to heavy cutting blades because of greater speed and high probablility of inflicting a fatal wound. At the same time, curves cutting blades are suppior to straight thrusting blades if you are on horseback because of the probability of the blade being caught in an enemy and lost.
Arethusa
It didn't fly into his eye. It flew into his arm. Otherwise, I agree, but mfb does have a point: the quality of the weapon is far secondary to the quality of the combatant. I do not think Birdy knows what he is talking about. Even slightly.
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
There is a video somewhere of an incident on the Shop at Home Knife Collector's show in which the host regails the audience with wild tales of how strong and sturdy this piece-'o-shit Pakastani sword while at the same time the tip of the sword breaks off and flys into his eye.

clarification: most swords forged with combat in mind are just swords. if you buy some pos ORIGENAL JAPENESE SOWRD SET!!1!!!! off the intarwebs or some home shopping show and try to swing it at somebody's head... well, you've got a lot of problems, the least of which being that you've got a crappy sword. but as far as katanas versus longswords versus scimitars versus what the hell ever, it just doesn't matter.
eidolon
I cannot lift this.

Grow stronger!
ShadowDragon8685
Or get a pair of cyberarms. Whatev.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Arethusa)
It didn't fly into his eye. It flew into his arm. Otherwise, I agree, but mfb does have a point: the quality of the weapon is far secondary to the quality of the combatant. I do not think Birdy knows what he is talking about. Even slightly.

It isn't so simple though. While there is no one best all around sword there are swords that are better for certain roles and for certain people. If you wanted to fight from horseback then the best choice for a sword would be some type of calvery saber because they are made specificly for fighting from horseback. If you are outfitting a mass regimented and armored infantry then the gladius is an excellent choice while the katana is kind of lacking. If you are a scrawny weakling an espada ropera would be recomended over the Sword of Crom. In fact, the logics of melee combat are unique for every situation and it is possible to fight an countless battles and never encounter two that are best fought with the same type of sword.

In many ways the role diversity of swords are similar to the role diversity of firearms. You don't snip targets miles away with a snub nosed revelver and you don't take a barret to a quickdraw duel, after all.
eidolon
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
Or get a pair of cyberarms. Whatev.

Don't think that was one of the choices he had. biggrin.gif
mfb
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
In fact, the logics of melee combat are unique for every situation and it is possible to fight an countless battles and never encounter two that are best fought with the same type of sword.

it's still not going to matter much, in most individual cases. using the correct sword for the correct situation is nice, yeah--it might give you a one or two percentage points over your opponent, assuming there's some sort of universal "who's gonna kick whose ass" measurment system. if you're outfitting an army, that slight advantage is pretty nice, because of the number of combatants involved; one percent of your army winning individual swordfights instead of losing them adds up pretty quickly. but in one-on-one fights? skill's way, way more important. it's like having two dice, one of which is weighted so it comes up six 2% more often than it should. yeah, over the course of your gaming career, that's gonna be your lucky die. but on a given roll, it's only one fiftieth more likely to come up 6. whoopty-do, y'know?
hyzmarca
Guy Chabot de Jarnac and Francois de Vivonne de la Ch�taigneraie may disagree.

You see, Jarnac and Ch�taigneraie participated in the last ever sanctioned trial by combat in France. Jarnac was a rank amateur while Ch�taigneraie was among the best swordsmen in France at the time.

Jarnac, having no possible chance of winning decided to hire a professional trainer to give him some advice. Jarnac had choice of weapons and he and his trainer took advantage of this. Jarnac chose a sword and shield combination that would allow him to pull off a single feint followed by an attack to the hamstring. Jarnac practiced this one technique to the exclusion of all others until the day of the duel. When the duel came he blocked and feinted just as he had trained, goading Ch�taigneraie into leaving his hamstring vulnerable. Unable to stand on both legs, Ch�taigneraie continued to prosecute the dual with one good leg but Jarnac pulled off the same attack again and took his other hamstring, leaving him unable to stand at all and winning by default.

Ch�taigneraie refused medical attention and a sneaky underhanded and downright unsporting attack that allows an amateur to defeat a master has been called a Coup de Jarnac ever since.

A Coup de Jarnac usually requires a specific choice of weapons and had Jarnac chosen any other set of weapons he would most likely have been slughtered. A Coup de Jarnac also requires the ability to identify a fatal flaw in your opponet's technique that can easily be exploited. Jarnac accomplished this by hiring a professional who had seen Ch�taigneraie duel several times. Most amateurs won't have access to this knowledge and will simply be slaughtered while trying to apply a universal "crane kick" type solution.

Of course, in this case it isn't supperior bade choice alone that makes the differance but the choice of a blade that lends itself to a specific cheap technique and the perfection of that cheapness that leads the amateur to victory.

What I'm trying to say is that certain weapons lend themselves to specific (possibly cheap) tactics and it is these tactics that win a fight, not necessarilary the weapon itself. Likewise, some weapons are completely unsuited for certain tactics.
mfb
that's the exception that makes the rule. sure, if you are a master of a particular weapon, or you get advice from a guy who is, you might be able to pull off an awesome trick in certain circumstances. but that's a one-time deal. in most fights, it doesn't matter. the most you can say is that a particular weapon is the best for a certain set of circumstances, which i'll completely agree with. overall, though, swords is swords.
eidolon
Cool. You grab that epee, and I'll just take this nodachi here...

wink.gif
mfb
sure, as long as we meet in a cluttered, narrow alley. i'm not denying that certain weapons are advantageous in certain situations. what i'm saying that no single weapon type is ZOMG TEH BESTEST EVAR because it's been folded with water a thousand times or whatever.
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (mfb)
that's the exception that makes the rule.

The phrase is "proves the rule". This is important because "prove", in context, means "proves false".
QUOTE
sure, if you are a master of a particular weapon, or you get advice from a guy who is, you might be able to pull off an awesome trick in certain circumstances. but that's a one-time deal. in most fights, it doesn't matter. the most you can say is that a particular weapon is the best for a certain set of circumstances, which i'll completely agree with. overall, though, swords is swords.

The real point to keep in mind is that swords handle differently, and that swords isn't swords if one of the fighters is trained in specific swords. I'm pretty sure you get this, but I want to make this clear for the audience. Two untrained people fighting katana vs. ground saber won't matter much (cavalry saber would matter just 'cause it's so short), and two people trained in their respective swords won't matter hugely (though I suspect the swing is larger than you make it out to be), but two people trained highly with the saber, if you give one a saber and one a katana it'll make a big difference.

As for quality, two points. The first is that you're correct when you say it won't matter unless a lot of other things that probably won't be equal are equal (again, barring massively poor quality). The second is that Japanese swords are indeed of higher average quality than European swords in all meaningful timeframes. Their secret? If you answered "dedicated master swordsmiths", you're wrong. Sure they had them, but so did Europe.

The real answer is "they had very little iron to work with". Iron was expensive, so cheap, battlefield-serviceable but ultimately disposable blades were out of the question. In Europe, iron was far more plentiful, allowing a large low-end market. Simple supply and demand.

~J
mfb
the discussion on techniques is interesting, but it's very tangential to my basic point. i don't mind discussing it, but i just want to make sure people aren't misunderstanding me (any further than has already occurred): any sword which has been competently crafted for the purpose of cuttin' people is going to serve well anyone who knows how to handle it. i make this point in response to an earlier exchange regarding the quality of european cavalry sabres versus katanas; my point being that using the weapon that can endure the most extreme tests of flexibility, durability, resistance to chipping, etcetera, isn't going to of significant aid to most fighters. yeah, it's nice that your sword won't break until the 1,000th hit as opposed to the 900th. but that only matters to two people: the general outfitting his troops, and the poor bastard whose sword is on its 899th swing. in the vast majority of cases, katana versus sabre--or whatever combination you choose--is going to be decided by who has the most skizzles, not who's got what weapon.
Raygun
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
Of course, in this case it isn't supperior bade choice alone that makes the differance but the choice of a blade that lends itself to a specific cheap technique and the perfection of that cheapness that leads the amateur to victory.

Argh... can't... resist...

In this particular context, "cheap" is a word devised by losers to make them feel better about having lost. There is no such thing as "cheap" when your life is on the line. All rules cease to exist. There is also no nobility in trying to kill someone, especially in a duel (take a look at how the "winners" tended to be treated afterwards). As one is bound to be considered an asshole at the outset, if one must fight, one might as well win. You make Chtaigneraie sound more like an egotistical fuckwit incapable of adapting than anything else (in any case, the "master" obviously missed something important).

But hell, if it were me, I would have pulled an Indiana Jones on 'im. (With an arquebus!) How's that for cheap? Then while he was on the ground pouting about how unfair it was for me to kill him first, I'd have stabbed him in the face a few times for good measure. wink.gif

That said, I agree with your earlier points. A finely-crafted instrument is definitely a plus, no matter the application, and an instrument is best used in the application for which it was intended. However, I also agree that in regards to most fighting tools (firearms and swords included), the instrument is sometimes specialized and/or crafted beyond practicality, the tool being more the focus than the technique. And that's what I think mfb is trying to say.

And lastly, "swords is swords" and "guns is guns" and "cars is cars" and "beer is beer". Well, yes, they are. But not really. smile.gif
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Raygun @ Apr 6 2006, 03:53 AM)

But hell, if it were me, I would have pulled an Indiana Jones on 'im. (With an arquebus!) How's that for cheap? Then while he was on the ground pouting about how unfair it was for me to kill him first, I'd have stabbed him in the face a few times for good measure. wink.gif

Considering that this was a judicial duel presided over by the King of France I don't think that would fly any more than bringing a winchester to a civil trial and shooting opposing council would today.

Since this was an official trial by combat rather than a duel of honor it had certain codifed rules that the participants were required to follow. Jarnac's attack is best considered a legal loophole. Slices to the hamstring were not expressly prohibited by statute but were generally considered to be improper.

Of course, Chtaigneraie was a egotistical fuckwit who shouldn't have even challanged Jarnac in the first place. In this context I use "cheap" to mean something that is easily exploitable regardless of skill. I don't see anything wrong with such exxploitation.
Birdy
QUOTE (Arethusa)
It didn't fly into his eye. It flew into his arm. Otherwise, I agree, but mfb does have a point: the quality of the weapon is far secondary to the quality of the combatant. I do not think Birdy knows what he is talking about. Even slightly.

Having actually handeled a modern "Schlger" (That is the Saber used by the Burschenschaftler) I do know a bit about the weapons. And those weapons can (and do) take a beating without breaking/dulling. We are not talking "TV sales fake Katanas" here

Having looked a bit into weapons history I do know that if you compare like with like (Average 17th century JapBlade with average 17th century European blade) the european blades can more than keep there own against he Japanese stuff. It's only when some JapFans compare apples (Landsknechst-Sword) with Bananas (Daimyos/Shoguns Katana) that the Japanese weapons come out on top.

And lastly: There are at least two reported occasions during the Mejii-Restauration where the Samurai's last words most likeky where: "It can breake?" before being cut down by a Japanese Officer wilding a Western blade.

Weapons quality is secondary only if the weapon can hold it's own. Ask Milanese Archers at Crechy or LeChauchat carring GI's in France. A weapon that breaks / bends / jams upon usage is useless, no matter what your skill.
stevebugge
This is of course why everyone should buy a 27 piece sword block from Cutco....... biggrin.gif
Raygun
QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Apr 6 2006, 05:52 PM)
Considering that this was a judicial duel presided over by the King of France I don't think that would fly any more than bringing a winchester to a civil trial and shooting opposing council would today.

Not exactly analogous, seeing a the object of the duel was to try and kill each other, or at the very least, beat the other into submission. Anyway it was a joke. I don't think I would ever have given him the opportunity to duel at all. I remember reading something about this a long time ago, but I don't remember what the offense was. Anyway, dueling is pretty stupid. Always has been, always will be. The person who is dumb enough to play by the "rules" loses, and the only way to win is not to do it at all.

QUOTE
Since this was an official trial by combat rather than a duel of honor it had certain codifed rules that the participants were required to follow. Jarnac's attack is best considered a legal loophole. Slices to the hamstring were not expressly prohibited by statute but were generally considered to be improper.

I would say that swinging swords at each other would be the major impropriety. It was certainly not something that was held in such high regard socially, even in those days. But hey, if Jarnac found a loophole that kept someone from killing him, more power to him, I say. I find it very difficult to think badly of someone who is smart enough to keep himself from being run through.

QUOTE
Of course, Chtaigneraie was a egotistical fuckwit who shouldn't have even challanged Jarnac in the first place. In this context I use "cheap" to mean something that is easily exploitable regardless of skill. I don't see anything wrong with such exxploitation.

I wouldn't have guessed that, judging by the tone of your comments. Anyway, it's a great underdog story. I've always been a fan of the underdog.
Vaevictis
QUOTE (Kagetenshi)
The real answer is "they had very little iron to work with". Iron was expensive, so cheap, battlefield-serviceable but ultimately disposable blades were out of the question.

It doesn't hurt that the Japanese blade making technique happens to be well adapted for the modern times we live in. They were specialized for dealing with unarmored or lightly armored opponents, being that nobody in Japan wore metal suits of armor. Pit a katana against plate mail, and it's virtually useless.

Nobody wears plate mail anymore wink.gif So the Japanse blades are basically specialized for what people tend to wear these days.

And for what it's worth, what I meant by the whole "150 years out of feudalism" thing is simply that they've had less time to forget their sword making craft; it doesn't hurt that they consider it part of their national identity, and so is still a highly respected profession today. It's been quite a few centuries since the sword was king in Europe, so the craft is naturally not as widely practiced and in some cases has declined a bit.
hyzmarca
I'm going to have to hurt you for that. Seriously.

Japan did have metal armor although it usually consisted of lacquered and laminated leather plates with iron plates protecting the most vital areas. Iron helmets were not uncommon. However, like most people samurai didn't go around in full battle armor 24/7, they reserved it for actual battles. Generally speaking, the katana was not the primary weapon of a footsoldier. Spears were largly prefered along with a host of other weapons.

However, there were few acual battles during the Edo era after Tokugawa took power (the time period that much of the relevent fiction takes place in). This is also a time when many "flowery" and impractical styles of swordmanship sprang up and the whole warrior-philosopher thing became popular. Swords were carried as symbols of rank rather than as practical impliments of death (although they still served the latter function at times). The samurai were still warriors but without any wars to fight they had to find new ways to remain relevant (the paradoxical nature of being both a ruling class and an irrelevant one would catch up to them when renewed contact with the west sparked the Meiji revolution).
Platinum
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
I'm going to have to hurt you for that. Seriously.

May I suggest a duel, perhaps?
hyzmarca
Only if the weapons are pies.
eidolon
I like apple.

Make mine apple.
mfb
shouldn't you be making hyzmarca's apple?
eidolon
Well, assuming that with non-lethal weapons, and the limited accuracy at any significant range, I figure that we'll both end up getting pies in the face.

That being the case "my pie" is the one hyzmarca is holding.
wink.gif
Vaevictis
Let me rephrase that -- almost nobody. Only the very top-tier warriors in the battle were going to have metal armor of any significance, and even then, the metal coverage was limited; compare that to the European battlefield where iron was common enough that footmen could be equipped with chain mail, and every bloody inch of the top tier was covered in plate.

After the Tokugawa period, such armor went essentially unused, so at that point, it really does get to the point where "nobody" is wearing metal armor.

QUOTE (hyzmarca)
The samurai were still warriors but without any wars to fight they had to find new ways to remain relevant (the paradoxical nature of being both a ruling class and an irrelevant one would catch up to them when renewed contact with the west sparked the Meiji revolution).


I always figured that what really busted the samurai class' chops was the rapid devaluation of rice at one point in the Japanese history; the samurai's stipend was specified in terms of rice volume, and so the value of that stipened plummetted, sending many formerly proud samurai houses into poverty, especially those that owned no farm land.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012