Favourite Historical Weapon ?

[Bugfatty300]

Not the pole ???

Melee weapons don't count for much in air battles.

 

[Flying Pig]

Pole. Capital P.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Pole. Capital P.

You mean Polish? No way. I'm certain Domen meant poles as in wooden staffs.

 

[Domen]

Yeah I meant poles. They were famous for knocking out German aircrafts from very close distance (hence being polearms).

Also polishing equipment before the battle was important. There were special units for this (for example 303 polish squadron).

 

[KaiserElectric]

Uh, what?

 

[say1988]

He is make a joke about people ignoring the Polish contribution by using the word spelt the same way, was was done earlier with Pole/pole.

 

[Flying Pig]

There's a 'polish' nail salon near where I live, and to make it even worse the proprietor decided to write it as POLISH on his sign.

 

[History_Buff]

Yeah I meant poles. They were famous for knocking out German aircrafts from very close distance (hence being polearms).

Also polishing equipment before the battle was important. There were special units for this (for example 303 polish squadron).

I 'd. Well played sir.

 

[innonimatu]

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.

Yes, put that way I can see why sabres should be heavy even in the early 19th century. And I just saw on a museum some huge british cavalry sabres from the napoleonic wars period, so I really can't doubt what you're explaining!

Pity I didn't had a camera, there was an amazing revolver/sabre contraption there also I'd love to share here.

 

[ArguCa]

Spoiler :

 

[Phrossack]

Yes, put that way I can see why sabres should be heavy even in the early 19th century. And I just saw on a museum some huge british cavalry sabres from the napoleonic wars period, so I really can't doubt what you're explaining!

Pity I didn't had a camera, there was an amazing revolver/sabre contraption there also I'd love to share here.

I don't entirely get it, though. If their enemies wore no armor (aside from the odd French cuirassier), then wouldn't most swords be deadly? Why get something slow and heavy when a lighter, faster weapon would do?

 

[Flying Pig]

Cavalrymen don't really have much time for finesse on the charge; they basically wanted to be able to hit the other chap with something and move on, without having to think too much about how they did it.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I don't entirely get it, though. If their enemies wore no armor (aside from the odd French cuirassier), then wouldn't most swords be deadly? Why get something slow and heavy when a lighter, faster weapon would do?

You want to be as certain as possible that any hit you make will actually disable whoever you're hitting. The human body can demonstrate remarkable resiliency , even unarmored.

Armor doesn't protect the soldier by reducing the effect of a blade against the plate, but by deflecting it entirely. Small light weapons are used to bypass the armor and inflict what injury you can. Heavy powerful weapons are used to quickly and effectively disable unarmored soldiers.

 

[Domen]

(aside from the odd French cuirassier),

Why "odd"? People have wrong impression that armour was not providing any protection against firearms - which is totally wrong. Armour was providing good protection against lighter types of firearms*, and also some protection against musket fire - which varied depending on particular armour and musket, but on average increased on the turn of the 17th & 18th century, when most armies started using lighter muskets of smaller calibres, which had smaller penetration power.**

**For example a Spanish musket produced around 1600 which can be found in the armoury in Graz, tabbed as musket G 358, calibre 20.6 mm (ball mass 49.14 g, diameter 20.2 mm) - a ball fired from this musket had initial energy of 6980 J and after flying 100 meters it still had energy of 2993 J (average from 14 measurements), and was generally capable of penetrating 4 mm of sheet metal made of steel when hitting it at a zero degree.***

By comparison a ball fired by a flintlock musket from ca. 1700 (tabbed MS2), calibre 17.6 mm (ball mass 32.16 g), after flying 100 m had energy of just 1324 J.

***At a zero degree angle hit, penetration is the easiest. This chart illustrates how various angles affect the durability of armour:

==================================================

*Example from 1625 - around 40 Cossacks equipped with harquebuses organized an ambush and fired almost at once towards a single Polish Hussar - Tomasz Zamoyski - only one ball actually hit the target, but did not penetrate his breastplate, even though it left a visible mark on it.

 

[Alue14]

For me, it's the good ol' Russian AK-47!

 

[Phrossack]

I never said that swords beat armor. And when I said "odd French cuirassier", I meant that they were uncommon, not strange. I have this strange obsession with armor, so any more info you have on their effectiveness is welcome, but I already know that swords can never cut through metal armor. I guess PCH's explanation about light and heavy weapons makes some sense- swords were usually lighter in times where armor was more widespread, but heavier later on.

 

[kdalibor]

My favourite is USSR KV tank. Heavy tank from start of the war that germans had really hard time to penetrate. Really good armor. Too bad Sowiets didn't had enough of them.

 

[History_Buff]

My favourite is USSR KV tank. Heavy tank from start of the war that germans had really hard time to penetrate. Really good armor. Too bad Sowiets didn't had enough of them.

That would be great, if it wasn't for the part where the T-34 was superior to the KV in just about every way, and significantly cheaper.

 

[kdalibor]

They had same gun but I prefer KV heavy armor than t-34 agility. Yes, t-34 was better tank, chepaer and more-produced, just I found interesting idea if Russians have more of these KV beast at start of the war what outcome will be. I just love to read about this battle:

On August 14, 1941, the vanguard of the German 8th Panzer Division approached Krasnogvardeysk (Gatchina) near Leningrad (St Petersburg), and the only Soviet force available at the time to attempt to stop the German advance consisted of five well-hidden KV-1 tanks, dug in within a grove at the edge of a swamp. KV-1 tank no. 864 was commanded by the leader of this small force, Lieutenant Zinoviy Kolobanov. German forces attacked Krasnogvardeysk from three directions. Near Noviy Uchkhoz settlement the geography favored the Soviet defenders as the only road in the region passed the swamp, and the defenders commanded this choke point from their hidden position. Lieutenant Kolobanov had carefully studied the situation and readied his detachment the day before. Each KV-1 tank carried twice the normal amount of ammunition, two-thirds being armor-piercing rounds. Kolobanov ordered his other commanders to hold their fire and await orders. He did not want to reveal the total force, so only one exposed tank at a time would engage the enemy. On August 14, the German 8th Panzer Division's vanguard ventured directly into the well-prepared Soviet ambush, with Kolobanov's tank knocking out the lead German tank with its first shot. The Germans falsely assumed that their lead tank had hit an anti-tank mine, and failed to realize that they had been ambushed. The German column stopped, giving Kolobanov the opportunity to destroy the second tank. Only then did the Germans realize they were under attack, but they failed to find the source of the shots. While the German tanks were firing blindly, Kolobanov knocked out the trailing German tank, thus boxing in the entire column.
Although the Germans correctly guessed the direction of fire, they could only spot Lieutenant Kolobanov's tank, and now attempted to engage an unseen enemy. German tanks moving off the road bogged down in the surrounding soft ground, becoming easy targets. 22 German tanks and 2 towed artillery pieces fell victim to Kolobanov's No. 864 before it ran out of ammunition. Kolobanov ordered in another KV-1, and 21 more German tanks were destroyed before the half-hour battle ended. A total of 43 German tanks were destroyed by just five Soviet KV-1s (two more remained in reserve).

After the battle, the crew of No. 864 counted a total of 135 hits on their tank, none of which had penetrated the KV-1's armor. Lieutenant Kolobanov was awarded the Order of Lenin, while his driver Usov was awarded the Order of the Red Banner. Later on, former Captain Zinoviy Kolobanov was again decorated by Soviet authorities, despite having been convicted and downgraded after the Winter War for "fraternizing with the enemy." After the end of World War II, Lieutenant Kolobanov served in the Soviet occupation zone in East Germany, where he was convicted again when a subordinate escaped to the British occupation zone, and was transferred to the reserves. The battle for Krasnogvardeysk was covered up by Soviet propaganda. A monument dedicated to this battle was installed in the village of Noviy Uchkhoz in 1980, at the place where Kolobanov's KV-1 was dug in, due solely to the demands of the villagers. Unfortunately, it was impossible to find a KV-1 tank, so an IS-2 heavy tank was installed there instead. The Soviet victory was the result of a well-planned ambush in advantageous ground and of technical superiority. Most of the German tanks in this battle were Panzer IIs, armed with 20 mm guns, and a few Panzer IIIs armed with 37 mm KwK 36 L/46.5 guns. The German tank guns had neither the range nor the power of the 76 mm main gun of a KV-1, and the narrower track width of the German tanks caused them to become trapped in the swampy ground.

 

[Domen]

Too bad Sowiets didn't had enough of them.

As of 22 June 1941 the Soviets had 871 KV tanks (639 KV1 and 232 KV2).

If 871 was "not enough" then I wonder how many would be?

Especially considering that Germans had only 480 Panzer IV tanks (on 22 June).

just I found interesting idea if Russians have more of these KV beast at start of the war what outcome will be.

The same. Considering that vast majority of 871 Russian KV tanks did not destroy a single German tank before being lost.

The episodes you described are fascinating but only a few KV tanks were used in such an effective way. The remaining 850+ were wasted.

22 German tanks and 2 towed artillery pieces fell victim to Kolobanov's No. 864 before it ran out of ammunition.

But how many German tanks fell victim to all other KV tanks: No. 1 to No. 863. and No. 865 to No. 871 ???