|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 15, 2019 23:46:18 GMT
So who said anything about the guy in armor just standing around waiting to get hit? If he (or she) does that, then he (or she) deserves whatever happens to them. If I were wearing armor, I would go on the offensive, not just stand around in my armor getting hit because I'm fighting an unarmored guy- that's stupid. And logically, it's better to have armor than not have it. That is why it's been so popular for thousands of years- if it weren't effective, it would have disappeared eons ago. Likewise, if you could't fight in armor, it would not have been used on the battlefield. Because if there is one thing a soldier hates more than anything is having to carry around a bunch of useless weight (and one thing a King hates more than anything is buying armor for foot soldiers if it doesn't work)- and one thing soldiers from both then and now love and covet is a good piece of armor.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 15, 2019 23:57:23 GMT
Predictable, go for fatique...
|
|
|
Post by Cosmoline on Mar 16, 2019 0:06:46 GMT
Or a line of guys with goedendags ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 2:48:33 GMT
Or panzerstecher
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 4:19:20 GMT
Armor is pretty great at protecting you from slashing, and to a good extent cutting and stabbing. It does nothing whatsoever to help against being pushed or pulled and it doesn't project a force field that dampens inertia. I might not cut through a helmet, but you will not want to be taking one to the side of the head. How scratched up the helmet looks afterwards will be the least of your concerns. If you think you get to laugh off an incoming strike just because of a fancy suit, then I think you'll be in for a bad day. You seem to be missing the key distinction that if you are in measure to bonk his helmet he is also in measure to splat your unprotected head. I'd take a concussion over a cranial skylight any day of the week. I honestly don't know why I even bother with these threads, a lot of times I wonder if I'm even conversing with people who train at all.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Mar 16, 2019 4:27:29 GMT
Stay out of his measure for as long as you possibly can. Hopefully he lets you escape. Perhaps he gains you the place for a grapple. Don`t search for the infight and don`t trade strikes either. If you think it`s safe to strike when in measure, go for the hands or openings, try to unbuckle the armor.
Use a polearm if you have one.
|
|
|
Post by zabazagobo on Mar 16, 2019 4:33:05 GMT
Good points, Timo Nieminen . I think that (highly entertaining) "Funny Incidents" video actually sums up some solid tactics: try to surprise the opponent and trip them up.
It's also worth distinguishing, like you did, whether we are talking equivalent armaments or not. I had been thinking two longsword users (or something similar), one armored, one unarmored. If we use the European conception of armor, this actually becomes rather different if the unarmored fighter has, say a buckler or parrying dagger alongside a sidesword or rapier; this could really work well against the armored opponent. If the armor does have appreciable openings, then even something like say a classic daisho, the aforementioned straight sword and dagger or even a sabre and dagger could all be viable. A zweihander or claymore could also do some real solid damage, even if only blunt force trauma, if the strikes are aimed appropriately.
Now this opens up a whole other can of worms where we could discuss what types of swords would be the most viable against an armored opponent charging your way.
Perhaps if one was feeling churlish, a rapier and a bag of pommels?
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Mar 16, 2019 15:55:26 GMT
Regarding moving out of his line of sight: you have to take like what, 4 or 5 steps to get to the appropriate angle that he can't see you. Well guess what, he turns his head 5 inches and all your work is undone.
Regarding staying at distance and cutting buckles, weakspots and what not: Your target is teeny tiny and hard to get at. He can cut you anywhere and you're dead. You can just try this yourself if you do sparring. Try and hit your partner only at one small spot on the leg or wherever and he gets to hit you anywhere. I bet he gets you every single time.
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Mar 16, 2019 16:00:44 GMT
Regarding staying at distance and cutting buckles, weakspots and what not: Your target is teeny tiny and hard to get at. He can cut you anywhere and you're dead. You can just try this yourself if you do sparring. Try and hit your partner only at one small spot on the leg or wherever and he gets to hit you anywhere. I bet he gets you every single time. That's why I began with "If..."
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 16, 2019 16:07:11 GMT
I would imagine a real armored fight would look something like this. When somebody is trying to kill you for real, you don't stop or let up until the other guy stops moving- permanently. You aren't there to play games with the guy (or girl), you are there to kill him (or her) before they do the same to you. No such thing as "fair"- only success or failure.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Mar 16, 2019 16:10:43 GMT
Regarding staying at distance and cutting buckles, weakspots and what not: Your target is teeny tiny and hard to get at. He can cut you anywhere and you're dead. You can just try this yourself if you do sparring. Try and hit your partner only at one small spot on the leg or wherever and he gets to hit you anywhere. I bet he gets you every single time. That's why I began with "If..." well if the weak spot is big enough i guess it can be attempted
|
|
|
Post by markus313 on Mar 16, 2019 16:16:54 GMT
That's why I began with "If..." well if the weak spot is big enough i guess it can be attempted That`s still not quite how I’d see it. Any strike attempted will get you in great danger (everything that happens inside his measure). But sometimes it’s a good idea to add a strike to the evasion. In that case a strike to the hand, for example, can serve to off-balance, and buys you time. Aim is not a priority, but of course a strike towards a weak spot will serve you better than a blow to a fully protected area (Musashi said “injure the corners”).
So my strategy would be to look for an escape. He`d probably try to chase me, so I shouldn`t wait for him to tire. I would try to be prepared for the grapple from a mindset of retiring and meet him on his closing (let him come to the grapple). Of course the most dangerous opponent would be the one with a calm but vigorous mindset, that would chase me with determination, but not hastily (I do not see grappling unarmored vs. armored as advantageous in any way, if bladed weapons are involved - but still better than trading strikes from standing).
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,625
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Mar 16, 2019 19:03:30 GMT
You seem to be missing the key distinction that if you are in measure to bonk his helmet he is also in measure to splat your unprotected head. I'd take a concussion over a cranial skylight any day of the week. ...herpa derp... What an insightful and explicated point. I am truly moved by your grandiloquent mastery of rhetoric. Bravo, sir.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2019 19:58:46 GMT
Ignoring blatant troll and moving on with my life.
Almost none of the attacks displayed in the series of videos on the last page showed any hint of forwards pressure. They wouldn't have been likely to knock over an empty garbage can, let along unbalance a standing opponent, armored or otherwise. The "Battle of Nations" 2013 part 1 had fellows more or less tripping over their own inability to maintain their balance, or being so unaware of where they are walking they were tripping over fence-posts and so on. It is very silly to look at though. The attacks are by and large superficial, ending at little more than surface contact due to having poor alignment to facilitate the generation of force. They are essentially slapping each other with the weapons.
The video on this page is a little more reasonable. The takedowns have some semblance of deliberate action where they aren't just tripping over each other, they aren't typically ignoring the opponent's weapon and just rushing in for a grapple, there's some intelligence being displayed the exchanges.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 16, 2019 22:27:01 GMT
Almost none of the attacks displayed in the series of videos on the last page showed any hint of forwards pressure. They wouldn't have been likely to knock over an empty garbage can, let along unbalance a standing opponent, armored or otherwise. [...] The video on this page is a little more reasonable. The takedowns have some semblance of deliberate action where they aren't just tripping over each other, they aren't typically ignoring the opponent's weapon and just rushing in for a grapple, there's some intelligence being displayed the exchanges. Understand that the first set of videos was (partly) in response to your earlier question: "Would your approach to armored fighting just be to take every swing that comes your way and hope that it doesn't knock you on your back?" Neither the videos on the previous page nor this page show blows from the weapons knocking the fighters down. This includes blows from two-handed axes, two-handed maces, and various polearms as well as from swords. The takedowns and grappling in the Japanese video are different. First, they have practiced this demo many times. Second, they are probably more skilled grapplers. Third, they go to grappling on the ground, whereas in HMB/BotN buhurt fighting a fighter is "removed from the battle" when something other than their feet touches the ground (shield, arm, knee, etc.) and going to ground with the opponent just means both fighters are out of action. All but one of the Japanese takedowns would have resulted in both fighters losing in HMB/BotN. The attacks are by and large superficial, ending at little more than surface contact due to having poor alignment to facilitate the generation of force. They are essentially slapping each other with the weapons. In the HMD/BotN buhurt (the large group fighting), grounding the opponent is the main way to remove them from the battle. Their weapons are allowed to be quite heavy (1.7kg for single-handed sword, with a minimum of 1.3kg, and up to 3kg for two-handed swords and 3.2kg for polearms). Blows from these typically don't knock fighters down. If they could knock their opponents down with blows, their opponents would be out of the battle - this would be a path to victory. Instead, we see kicks, throws, pushes (while the "funny moments" video had plenty of unintended tripping, it also had plenty of deliberate takedowns). I haven't fought under HMB rules, but have done full-contact armoured fighting where hitting forcefully was required for scoring (SCA). A key part of the training was power generation, so as to be able to reliably hit hard enough (while minimising telegraphing so as to be able to land the blows on an uncooperative opponent). Hard blows don't knock fighters down. For competitive fighting with SCA-type rules for forceful blows scoring (so fighters can't ignore hits by the opponent's weapon unless they are light), and grappling, including ground grappling, there are the TwoChux, who play alongside the SCA: There are very good reasons why grappling is an important part of armoured fighting in the Medieval fightbooks. Grappling + dagger is a very effective anti-armour technique.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2019 0:31:25 GMT
Almost none of the attacks displayed in the series of videos on the last page showed any hint of forwards pressure. They wouldn't have been likely to knock over an empty garbage can, let along unbalance a standing opponent, armored or otherwise. [...] The video on this page is a little more reasonable. The takedowns have some semblance of deliberate action where they aren't just tripping over each other, they aren't typically ignoring the opponent's weapon and just rushing in for a grapple, there's some intelligence being displayed the exchanges. Understand that the first set of videos was (partly) in response to your earlier question: "Would your approach to armored fighting just be to take every swing that comes your way and hope that it doesn't knock you on your back?" Neither the videos on the previous page nor this page show blows from the weapons knocking the fighters down. This includes blows from two-handed axes, two-handed maces, and various polearms as well as from swords. The takedowns and grappling in the Japanese video are different. First, they have practiced this demo many times. Second, they are probably more skilled grapplers. Third, they go to grappling on the ground, whereas in HMB/BotN buhurt fighting a fighter is "removed from the battle" when something other than their feet touches the ground (shield, arm, knee, etc.) and going to ground with the opponent just means both fighters are out of action. All but one of the Japanese takedowns would have resulted in both fighters losing in HMB/BotN. The attacks are by and large superficial, ending at little more than surface contact due to having poor alignment to facilitate the generation of force. They are essentially slapping each other with the weapons. In the HMD/BotN buhurt (the large group fighting), grounding the opponent is the main way to remove them from the battle. Their weapons are allowed to be quite heavy (1.7kg for single-handed sword, with a minimum of 1.3kg, and up to 3kg for two-handed swords and 3.2kg for polearms). Blows from these typically don't knock fighters down. If they could knock their opponents down with blows, their opponents would be out of the battle - this would be a path to victory. Instead, we see kicks, throws, pushes (while the "funny moments" video had plenty of unintended tripping, it also had plenty of deliberate takedowns). I haven't fought under HMB rules, but have done full-contact armoured fighting where hitting forcefully was required for scoring (SCA). A key part of the training was power generation, so as to be able to reliably hit hard enough (while minimising telegraphing so as to be able to land the blows on an uncooperative opponent). Hard blows don't knock fighters down. For competitive fighting with SCA-type rules for forceful blows scoring (so fighters can't ignore hits by the opponent's weapon unless they are light), and grappling, including ground grappling, there are the TwoChux, who play alongside the SCA: There are very good reasons why grappling is an important part of armoured fighting in the Medieval fightbooks. Grappling + dagger is a very effective anti-armour technique. That was a question I was hoping would get folks thinking about solving the actual problem of an armored opponent. Running away, or getting a few other friends to help pull him down, wishing you had a different weapon, or hoping he has a heat stroke is getting off course from answering the thread topic. I realize the videos don't show folks getting knocked down from weapon strikes - which is a little surprising since it seems like almost everything else does the trick. The attacks that are getting thrown don't have a lot going for them in terms of technique, so it shouldn't be too surprising to see them having very little effect.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Mar 17, 2019 3:04:37 GMT
That was a question I was hoping would get folks thinking about solving the actual problem of an armored opponent. Running away, or getting a few other friends to help pull him down, wishing you had a different weapon, or hoping he has a heat stroke is getting off course from answering the thread topic. The solution is simple: hit them where their armour isn't, either at long range (and having more reach is very useful if trying this), or in close with a dagger after controlling them in grappling, and depending on their armour, you might be able to damage their armour and reduce their mobility (again, reach is useful to attempt this with less risk). Trying to stun them with hits to the head can have a place (depending on the armour and the weapons being used). While the solution is simple, the implementation is difficult (assuming similar skill). Train more, including specific training for anti-armour. Details will depend on the armour and weapons being used. I realize the videos don't show folks getting knocked down from weapon strikes - which is a little surprising since it seems like almost everything else does the trick. The attacks that are getting thrown don't have a lot going for them in terms of technique, so it shouldn't be too surprising to see them having very little effect. Having been hit full-force while wearing armour, by opponents with good technique and good power generation, I am not at all surprised by the lack of knocking down.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 17, 2019 11:52:32 GMT
I've brought this up on other discussion threads and was slapped down for my position on the topic, but I stand firm in my belief that TRAINING is the critical factor when discussing a "what if" scenario. In this discussion, we are looking at armored vs, unarmored.
We cannot simply look at equipment and make a determination of outcome. All things else being equal, didn't Picasso and Rembrandt use the same paints and brushes available to everybody else around them? What they did with those same paints and brushes cannot be compared in terms of materials equating to an outcome- they had skill and vision.
The same holds true for combat. So are we talking about two opponents (one armored and one unarmored), that are just random dudes pulled from the street and given weapons? If that's the case, the the armored guy is at a severe disadvantage from ignorance of his own clothing. Or are we talking about two skilled opponents that have spent years training in armor, sparring and learning capabilities and limitations? If that's the case, then the armored guy will win hands down.
In the Japanese video I posted, it should be clear that weapons were not very effective (because armor protects against weapons) and the fights ended on the ground. It is also clear, at least to me, that none of the combatants seemed to have any problem with flexibility or mobility while wearing armor. Time and time again it's been shown that a warrior has full fighting capability while wearing proper armor that is correctly fitted. So logically, it would pay to train in grappling while wearing armor- if you intend to wear armor while fighting. For sake of discussion, I'm ignoring association combat safety rules limitations and simply discussing kill or be killed fights.
My position on this discussion (which I find very stimulating BTW) is that training being equal, the one wearing armor will win because he has a huge advantage over unarmored through the simply fact that weapons aren't going to be effective against him unless at very close range, in which case it's now a matter of grappling steel vs. flesh. While it's true that armor does not dampen inertia, it certainly takes the edge off hitting a hard surface vs. hitting the ground with nothing but skin. Earlier, the analogy was made using football pads- and I agree- wearing pads allows you to be more aggressive and do things you couldn't otherwise do without hurting yourself in the process.
I will end on this thought: as for me, if I had a choice to go out on the field of combat either with armor or without, then I'm choosing armor every time.
|
|
Ouroboros
Member
Imperial, Mysterious In Amorous Array
Posts: 570
Member is Online
|
Post by Ouroboros on Mar 17, 2019 14:38:42 GMT
I would bind the armoured fool with ancient logic puzzles thereby giving me a chance to scribe a circle in the sod, I would then cast down my bag of iron shavings and light up the ceremonial torches...while I incant and summon a thunderstorm to deal with the armor, i could abjure a dimensionally distant passing demon, perhaps a devil, to rise from the otherworld and take the tin canned soul away with them leaving me Smokey Smokey corpse ruins smote by demon fire and brimstone salts...
Or use a weighted net...
Ouro
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Mar 17, 2019 16:16:58 GMT
I would bind the armoured fool with ancient logic puzzles thereby giving me a chance to scribe a circle in the sod, I would then cast down my bag of iron shavings and light up the ceremonial torches...while I incant and summon a thunderstorm to deal with the armor, i could abjure a dimensionally distant passing demon, perhaps a devil, to rise from the otherworld and take the tin canned soul away with them leaving me Smokey Smokey corpse ruins smote by demon fire and brimstone salts... Or use a weighted net... Ouro Yeah right. Ok, Einstein, explain to me then how you would display the captured armor as a trophy if it's destroyed by a fire demon on lost in a ethereal realm somewhere? Honestly, don't you even think through your tactics?
|
|