Re: [tekumel] Logistics (was Siege gear and legion uniforms)
- --- phuston@... wrote:
>My immediate reference is James Dunnigan's HOW TO MAKE
> Quoting Tim O'Brien <merctim@...>:
> > I realize the Professor is bored by logistics, so
> > keep this short:
> > A human infantryman can generally carry about 100
> > of equipment. A soldier generally needs 15-30 lbs
> > supplies per day to operate in the field,
> > ammunition (arrows), food & water, and other
> > exependables.
> 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.
Timothy Squire O'Brien
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- 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 email@example.com, "Thomas Worthington"
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 04:42:13 +0100, Hugh K. Singh<hksingh1@c...>
> > Hmmmm
> > Thomas Worthington wrote:
> >> On Tue, 31 May 2005 19:40:07 +0100, Hugh K. Singh
> >> wrote:un-necessary parts .
> >>> I've worn all sorts of armor , and thrown away the
> >>>it's hard to
> >> Unfortunately, unless someone actually tried to murder you,
> >> know what the unnecessary parts really were.Re-enactment fights are not
> >> really good enough for evaluateing armour, although theycan give a
> >> good feel for how a weapon handles.weapons rather than,
> Two examples (assuming the reenactors are using real
> eg rattan. Using fake weapons basically tells you nothingabout any aspect
> of combat).weapons.
> 1. Reenactors are normally told to avoid thrusting with pointed
> This is precisely because thrusts are a dangerous move bothbecause a
> thrusting weapon has the attacker's body weight behind it andbecause it
> is harder to parry a thrust than a slash. In other words, thrustsare a
> good way to kill someone which generally takes the shine offyour
> demonstration to the local womens' institute. If you are in realcombat
> then thrusts are something you and your armour will have todeal with and
> that affects the balance of utility between chain in particular andthe
> other types of armour.weapon. In
> 2. Reenactors are normally wary of head shots with any type of
> reality the battlefields of Britain, for one, are covered inskeletons
> with various parts of their skulls missing. Again, avoiding lethalshots -
> because they are lethal - severely distorts the value of thingslike
> bucket helms and even chain coifs, for example.produced as
> I've had the bad luck to witness a few riots where knives were
> well as clubs and other objects and I have also been inre-enactments. I
> can assure you that the latter bear no relation to the former butI know
> which one I think a real battlefield would be most like.was not the
> Real armour was used because it worked. Leather armour
> worthless rubbish it is frequently depicted as in RPGs, forexample.
> Nobody would ever have walked about in armour with"unnecessary parts"
> except at ceremonial duties, which can be seen today inLondon, where the
> Queens' guard still wear the red coats and bearskin hats of theCrimean
> War but the exact same men serve in Iraq in Kevlar andcamouflage.