Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2007 3:54:27 GMT
Ramm: a shuriken can easily pierce the sternum, and yes wikipedia is the be all and end all of knowledge *rolls eyes* Samurai spent their lives training to kill, they learnt all the soft spots on the body. A shuriken can easily puncture a lung or a kidney, it doesn't just need to hit soft spots especially a good throwing knife.
398 lbs per square inch to crush a human skull, err i think you got that mixed up. 8 pounds per square inch to break a bone, 16 per square inch to crush a bone and i believe 36 or 64 per square inch to fracture the skull and err 108 i think it is to actually crush a skull. It's not 398 not sure where you go that from mate.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 21, 2007 4:06:15 GMT
I may be wrong with the numbers, but shuriken just do not have weight behind it to jam through a sternum, and I'm almost certain of that. And even if it "could" be done, I'd not classify that as "easily." Then, realize that armour would be warn as well and you have a completely non-lethal piece of sharpened steel in your hand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2007 4:23:38 GMT
hmm, well considering i have seen guys throw needles through thick glass, anything is possible if you train hard enough and practice. You have to understand that a 2 lb shuriken gains the weight of the throw and ends up weighing more when it finally hits the target due to momentum, it is the same reason that a bullet can penetrate a man or even a tank, it is all about momentum to weight ratio. The shuriken was never thrown at armour and if it was it was the bamboo armour the samurai wore. A shuriken is far more deadly than you give it credit for, a shuriken is useless against western armour but you are forgetting the guys the samurai were fighting didn't have that kind of armour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2007 4:29:05 GMT
when I was working on film (The Phantom) what is it you do, ronin?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2007 4:38:45 GMT
At the time I was a props maker for Warner Bros.For that film we had to cast up a heap of human, chimp and howler monkey skulls. Good work if you can get it but not reliable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2007 4:45:46 GMT
At the time I was a props maker for Warner Bros.For that film we had to cast up a heap of human, chimp and howler monkey skulls. Good work if you can get it but not reliable. ferris buehler, you're my hero. that's pretty cool. very cool, in fact.
|
|
|
Post by tajima on May 21, 2007 6:01:45 GMT
Send me a monkey skull!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 22, 2007 2:59:23 GMT
AH! shuriken, that reminds me.....
|
|
|
Post by randomnobody on May 22, 2007 3:21:21 GMT
Well, those are...big... Can't quite place what they fashioned them out of. Some sort of saw?
|
|
|
Post by tajima on May 22, 2007 21:37:35 GMT
I made mine out of the smallest size circular saw blade
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 22, 2007 21:54:06 GMT
Blood, I think you're seriously underestimating the armour of the samurai here. Yes western armour was just about always more protective, made of better and higher quality materials, and stronger, but the smaurai utilized, and quite effectively, I might add, their original and unique armour. It was often made from iron or steel and there is just no way that a shuriken could do anything more than scratch something like that. Samurai did not have this flimsy armour junk that people think (one of the many misconceptions of samurai, but the only negative one I can think of). If it was so worthless, why weigh yourself down with it at all? I also seem to remember that smaurai armour was, if anything, thicker than european armour.
also if you'd read this quote by me...
you'd see there wasn't really any reason for the sarcasm on me quoting it ;D
|
|
|
Post by tajima on May 23, 2007 8:34:56 GMT
I agree with Ramm. The armour was incredibly strong. Of course, it is much lighter and manouverable compared to European styled armour.
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on May 24, 2007 1:22:08 GMT
Very true...
Japanese armor was very effective against - for example - a Katana. Most JSA sword techniques were designed to try and attack the vulnerable areas, such as under the armpit, the throat, etc or to wrestle the opponent to the ground and deliver the coup de gras with a dagger (much like European medieval armored fighting!).
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 24, 2007 1:30:59 GMT
Actually tajima, that's another misconception. The armour was most certainly not lighter and if anything a tad clumsier if one goes off of the looks alone of the weight distribution. Manuverability is hard to argue, but I'd go with a late suit of foot oriented plate (circa 1550 maybe?) over any samurai armour just because it was so expertly designed for manuevarability. It also is free from the frill and style of a japanese harness so I'd think there is less for a man with a pollaxe to hook me around.
|
|
|
Post by tajima on May 24, 2007 6:19:29 GMT
15-16th century Italian armour is very fine - it is light and very strong. And by light, I meant compared to the full plated/chained medieval armour of Europe.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 24, 2007 19:38:54 GMT
Only if your definition of light is in protection and not weight.
|
|
|
Post by tajima on May 24, 2007 21:19:34 GMT
Touche.
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 25, 2007 2:25:29 GMT
Don't hate the playa, hate the game ;D! Ok, sorry couldn't resist sorry if I came off as a bit standoffish, not my intention. I just want to see these myths stamped out as they are quite wrong and only serve as a boundary to education
|
|