Favourite Historical Weapon ?

[ParkCungHee]

That's why in those days you had big heavy swords and not much worry about the edge compared to its ability to not break. It was after Europe was moving away from metal armor that real cutting swords became common.

Swords became much heavier after the removal of armor. Drilling with a cavalry sabre mainly consists of learning how to swing it without dislocating your shoulder.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

By 1944 the Me262 (if I remember correctly) was better.

The Me 262 was a jet aircraft, so this comparison is a bit of a stretch. Technically, they were both fighters (though Hitler tried very hard to convince the Luftwaffe to make them all as fighter-bombers - bad decision), they way they engage in dogfights is very different.

Sure the Spitfire could turn circles around a Me 262, but that didn't matter a bit as the Me 262 could simply stop turning and zoom away. Principly, the way a Spitfire engaged an Me 262 was to hit them as they took off or landed, as it was literally the only way to catch them. Of course, the dearth of experienced German pilots didn't help either.

But basically, you can't really compare the two fairly as they belonged to two different ages that happened to overlap at that instant.

In 1935, maybe. But by 1944 the Bf109 was clearly obsolete, and the Spitfire was not.

Not really. There was a constant back and forth between the two planes as to which one was better. They both underwent continual improvements till the end (and beyond, they both flew into the 60's in various airforces [the Czech copies of the Bf109 was flown by Israel at one point, of all countries]).

Piloting skills (and lack of good pilots on the German side) and the disparity between materials, fuel and ammunition really made more of a difference between the two plane's combat effectiveness than the inherent strengths or weakness they had.


And since we're talking about the Spitfire....It was and is overrated.

Don't get me wrong, it is a good bird, world class even. But it didn't win the Battle of Brittain and played only a limited role in the overall war. It just didn't have the range to push into Europe with the bombers or to fly independent sorties there. Early versions also had serious flaws; they couldn't dive for instance, without the carborator flooding from petrol floating up and out of it in zero-g. The Germans knew this and used it against them.

It has this mythos of being the 'best aircraft of all time' and it just wasn't. It was expensive, it had wings that were hard to manufacture and was never actually all-around better than it's principle opponents.

/rant
It was a great plane and a national icon.

As someone who has smashed watermelons, and attempted to smash skulls, watermelons are a lot easier.

Creepy!

 

[KaiserElectric]

I agree, the Spitfire was an overrated fighter. The weapon that really won the Battle of Britain was the radar (or a more advanced version of it, I'm not entirely sure). It gave Britain's fighters a critical advantage that the Germans could not match.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I agree, the Spitfire was an overrated fighter. The weapon that really won the Battle of Britain was the radar (or a more advanced version of it, I'm not entirely sure). It gave Britain's fighters a critical advantage that the Germans could not match.

Yeah and the Hawker Hurrican IIRC did all the heavy lifting of that battle, plus a smattering of American fighters.

 

[r16]

after the British went to 100 octane fuel , Spit' of 1940 was definitely superior to Luftwaffe . While ı can't deny the overall effect of the Hurricane , Spitfire was something mental for the majority of Luftwaffe once RAF abandoned Vs started to fight in leader wingman teams .

american fighters didn't make it to the fight until 1941 on RAF side . P-36s went to Far East as the Japanese threat was assumed to be of no great importance and the P-40 served well anywhere until it was met with '109 .

 

[hobbsyoyo]

after the British went to 100 octane fuel , Spit' of 1940 was definitely superior to Luftwaffe . While ı can't deny the overall effect of the Hurricane , Spitfire was something mental for the majority of Luftwaffe once RAF abandoned Vs started to fight in leader wingman teams .

No it wasn't 'definately better'. And in any case your points here reinforce my statement that it wasn't as much about the planes being inherently better, but the availability of equipment, supplies, petrol, pilots and pilot effectiveness that made the biggest impact.

american fighters didn't make it to the fight until 1941 on RAF side . P-36s went to Far East as the Japanese threat was assumed to be of no great importance and the P-40 served well anywhere until it was met with '109 .

It appears you're right on no US fighters in the Battle of Brittain. I had thought they got Warhawks from the US but it appears I was wrong.

They did, however, recieve planes and engines from the US and Canada - though they were British designs.

 

[r16]

disagreement on words ? A plane superior in one setting does not immediately imply it was better all over . My point was just a word in defence of the Spitfire , a graceful and seriously effective at times plane . Am a P-47 fan in the first place . And the Jug is much harder to argue for ...

 

[innonimatu]

Swords became much heavier after the removal of armor. Drilling with a cavalry sabre mainly consists of learning how to swing it without dislocating your shoulder.

If you mean modern cavalry sabres you have to take into account that their main purpose was changed in the late 19th century: they became a "non-lethal" weapon used as a big baton by armies to repress domestic protests without causing too many casualties. Riots and indeed any gatherings deemed undesirable by the authorities were broken up by cavalry hitting people around with the flats of those blades...

 

[ParkCungHee]

The experience I have with cavalry sabre drill comes from looking at training manuals from the American Civil War. Though I just found this useful video on youtube.


Training basically consisted of practicing a few basic repetitive cuts and thrusts, over and over again so you could make them and return to a neutral position again. And even in that video you can tell the recruits are having a hard time with that.

You have to remember that in 19th century warfare it was extremely unlikely that you would be using a sword against a soldier also armed with a sword. Even when being used for "real" military effect, the purpose of cavalry was to run down infantry or conduct scouting and skirmishing.

Therefor, when you take your sword out you want something big and heavy that can bring a great deal of force down on someone's head from horseback. Whether you're trying to kill someone or not, the motions are basically the same.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

disagreement on words ? A plane superior in one setting does not immediately imply it was better all over . My point was just a word in defence of the Spitfire , a graceful and seriously effective at times plane . Am a P-47 fan in the first place . And the Jug is much harder to argue for ...

Well yes it is a disagreement over words as your first statement is not nearly as nuanced as the one quoted above. I disagree that the plane was 'definitely better' as you put it.

 

[Flying Pig]

You have to remember that in 19th century warfare it was extremely unlikely that you would be using a sword against a soldier also armed with a sword. Even when being used for "real" military effect, the purpose of cavalry was to run down infantry or conduct scouting and skirmishing.

Unless, of course, you were an infantry officer, in which case you'd quite likely run into another infantry officer once the battle came down to cold steel. Hence the sport of fencing. Heavy cavalry don't really plan to get involved in fights; they prefer to smash through things and keep on smashing rather than getting bogged down in cut-and-thrust. It's the same with modern cavalry - if they can't force a break, they'll revert to supporting the infantry, who are far better at sustained combat with the enemy.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Unless, of course, you were an infantry officer, in which case you'd quite likely run into another infantry officer once the battle came down to cold steel. Hence the sport of fencing.

Infantry Sabers and training were of course quite different for this reason, but even by the standards of medieval weapons they were quite heavy for what was regarded as a side weapon.

Heavy cavalry don't really plan to get involved in fights; they prefer to smash through things and keep on smashing rather than getting bogged down in cut-and-thrust.

Precisely, and that's why you get these big heavy single handed swords that are made for smashing.

 

[Wrymouth3]

I'm actually a fan of the Schiltron, and would probably consider it my "favorite weapon". I'm also a big fan of the primitive mortar tubes that the Mysore Kingdom used in its many conflicts with the British East India Company.

 

[Traitorfish]

The schiltron is a formation, surely?

 

[KaiserElectric]

According to google, yes it is. Apparently it's a formation similar to the phalanx.

 

[mayor]

According to google, yes it is. Apparently it's a formation similar to the phalanx.

And very useful against cavalry in Medieval II Total war

 

[Domen]

The weapon that really won the Battle of Britain was the radar

Not the pole ???

 

[Phrossack]

And very useful against cavalry in Medieval II Total war

Actually, it's appallingly useless unless you're surrounded.

 

[Wrymouth3]

The schiltron is a formation, surely?

I'm aware as such, which is why I put quotes around weapon. Though Blind Harry writes in some of his work that the specific halberds and spears were modified for schiltron purposes. Take that as you will.

 

[Flying Pig]

I understood it as a kind of circular phalanx; it would be an advantage to have weapons which wouldn't get in your neighbour's face when you tried to use them in such a formation.