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
    • 0 Attachment
      --- 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
      WAR.


      _____
      TSOB
      Timothy Squire O'Brien

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • 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
      • 0 Attachment
        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.
        Cheers,
        Toby
        --- In tekumel@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Worthington"
        <thomas@o...> wrote:
        > On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 04:42:13 +0100, Hugh K. Singh
        <hksingh1@c...>
        > wrote:
        >
        > > Hmmmm
        > >
        > >
        > > Thomas Worthington wrote:
        > >
        > >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:40:07 +0100, Hugh K. Singh
        <hksingh1@c...>
        > >> 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
        weapons.
        > 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
        your
        > demonstration to the local womens' institute. If you are in real
        combat
        > 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
        the
        > 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
        skeletons
        > with various parts of their skulls missing. Again, avoiding lethal
        shots -
        > because they are lethal - severely distorts the value of things
        like
        > 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
        example.
        > 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
        Crimean
        > War but the exact same men serve in Iraq in Kevlar and
        camouflage.
        >
        > TW
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.