Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [tekumel] Logistics (was Siege gear and legion uniforms)

Expand Messages
  • Tim O'Brien
    ... My immediate reference is James Dunnigan s HOW TO MAKE WAR. _____ TSOB Timothy Squire O Brien __________________________________________________ Do You
    Message 1 of 55 , Jun 1, 2005
      --- phuston@... wrote:
      > --
      > Quoting Tim O'Brien <merctim@...>:
      > > I realize the Professor is bored by logistics, so
      > I'll
      > > keep this short:
      > >
      > > A human infantryman can generally carry about 100
      > lbs
      > > of equipment. A soldier generally needs 15-30 lbs
      > of
      > > supplies per day to operate in the field,
      > including
      > > ammunition (arrows), food & water, and other
      > > exependables.
      > >
      > Tim,
      > Where do you get this figure from?
      > With all due respect, I don't think I agree with
      > either of the numbers you
      > supply but I'm perfectly willing to listen.

      My immediate reference is James Dunnigan's HOW TO MAKE

      Timothy Squire O'Brien

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    • Toby Whitty
      You make some good points Thomas. I agree with your assessment of leather armour, though I m more familiar with quilted aketon/mail from a re-enacting POV. I
      Message 55 of 55 , Jun 3, 2005
        You make some good points Thomas. I agree with your
        assessment of leather armour, though I'm more familiar with
        quilted aketon/mail from a re-enacting POV. I agree that
        re-enactors don't truly reflect the full battle experience but I've
        found the 11th-12th C. armour our group uses to be very effective
        against blows to the body. I think the bodies recovered from the
        Visby site show overwhelmingly wounds sustained to head and
        lower (esp. left) leg. Shields are often vastly underestimated,
        esp. against single or just a few archers that one can see.
        --- In tekumel@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Worthington"
        <thomas@o...> wrote:
        > On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 04:42:13 +0100, Hugh K. Singh
        > wrote:
        > > Hmmmm
        > >
        > >
        > > Thomas Worthington wrote:
        > >
        > >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:40:07 +0100, Hugh K. Singh
        > >> wrote:
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>> I've worn all sorts of armor , and thrown away the
        un-necessary parts .
        > >>>
        > >>>
        > >>
        > >> Unfortunately, unless someone actually tried to murder you,
        it's hard to
        > >> know what the unnecessary parts really were.
        Re-enactment fights are not
        > >> really good enough for evaluateing armour, although they
        can give a
        > >> good feel for how a weapon handles.
        > Two examples (assuming the reenactors are using real
        weapons rather than,
        > eg rattan. Using fake weapons basically tells you nothing
        about any aspect
        > of combat).
        > 1. Reenactors are normally told to avoid thrusting with pointed
        > This is precisely because thrusts are a dangerous move both
        because a
        > thrusting weapon has the attacker's body weight behind it and
        because it
        > is harder to parry a thrust than a slash. In other words, thrusts
        are a
        > good way to kill someone which generally takes the shine off
        > demonstration to the local womens' institute. If you are in real
        > then thrusts are something you and your armour will have to
        deal with and
        > that affects the balance of utility between chain in particular and
        > other types of armour.
        > 2. Reenactors are normally wary of head shots with any type of
        weapon. In
        > reality the battlefields of Britain, for one, are covered in
        > with various parts of their skulls missing. Again, avoiding lethal
        shots -
        > because they are lethal - severely distorts the value of things
        > bucket helms and even chain coifs, for example.
        > I've had the bad luck to witness a few riots where knives were
        produced as
        > well as clubs and other objects and I have also been in
        re-enactments. I
        > can assure you that the latter bear no relation to the former but
        I know
        > which one I think a real battlefield would be most like.
        > Real armour was used because it worked. Leather armour
        was not the
        > worthless rubbish it is frequently depicted as in RPGs, for
        > Nobody would ever have walked about in armour with
        "unnecessary parts"
        > except at ceremonial duties, which can be seen today in
        London, where the
        > Queens' guard still wear the red coats and bearskin hats of the
        > War but the exact same men serve in Iraq in Kevlar and
        > TW
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.