StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Superman wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I caught a glimpse of that episode but never bothered watching the whole thing. However, as long as we're going to mention this, it's worth pointing out that those old pirate guns were godawful shitty weapons, and should not in any way be thought of as comparable to modern firearms. Those guns were ridiculously inaccurate and stood a pretty good chance of misfiring even under ideal conditions. If it was raining, you could probably charge the guy and be fairly confident that you would reach him without a bullet coming anywhere near you, or even leaving his barrel.

Oh, that's absolutely true. Even the act of firing a primitive firearm like a blunderbuss was often dangerous to the user; the powder sometimes had a tendency to ignite and explode when it wasn't supposed to. This fight's result was supposedly determined by the fact that the knight would have to fight at a close range. If the knight was close enough to try and take out the pirate with his sword, then he was also close enough to be killed by a single shot from the pirate's firearm. The short distance would also improve the pirate's accuracy and help to ensure a shot to the knight's unprotected face.

Yeah, but if it misfires, the pirate is a dead man. This is one of those confrontations where the weather makes a big difference. On a perfect day, the pirate probably gets off a shot against a charging knight, although if he shoots too early, he'll miss and he won't get another chance (especially if the knight is on a horse). On a rainy day, forget it. The pirate's gun won't fire, and he'll have to fight a plate-armoured knight with his pissy little toothpick sword.

Darth Wong wrote:Yeah, but if it misfires, the pirate is a dead man. This is one of those confrontations where the weather makes a big difference. On a perfect day, the pirate probably gets off a shot against a charging knight, although if he shoots too early, he'll miss and he won't get another chance (especially if the knight is on a horse). On a rainy day, forget it. The pirate's gun won't fire, and he'll have to fight a plate-armoured knight with his pissy little toothpick sword.

I think they run these fight scenarios a repeatedly in some stats program. Out of something like 300 "trials," the pirate might have won something like 70% of the time.

Provided that the firearm functions the way it's supposed to (I don't know what the numbers are, but I'm sure they worked well over 50% of the time), I think the pirate probably had too much of an advantage. The knight would have his ass in a swordfight, but a single shot would probably prevent that from happening in the first place. I might be wrong, but I think the show also mentioned crude chemical weapons pirates sometimes used. I know pirates often used chemical "stinkpot" grenades. Did the show take those kinds of weapons into account?

Ah crap, I have to go watch that one again.

Thing is, there's a big difference between a XVth century pirate and a XVIIIth century one, who'd be equipped with much more reliable flintlock pistols and muskets.

Same goes for the knight. Depending on the era, the could have guns themselves.

How about a Somali one with a Kalashnikov and maybe an RPG?

I recall them taking about the unreliability of the flint lock and the blunderbuss, in fact I think it misfired on one of the tests. That said, they run the numbers in 1000 simulations and supposedly the final mock battle is the average.

Knife wrote:I recall them taking about the unreliability of the flint lock and the blunderbuss, in fact I think it misfired on one of the tests. That said, they run the numbers in 1000 simulations and supposedly the final mock battle is the average.

Yeah, but as I said, they're assuming it's a beautiful day. If it's raining, that reliability rate drops to basically near-zero. And they're using modern reproductions and modern black powder, which are probably of much higher quality than the crap that a typical pirate would have.

Darth Wong wrote:

Knife wrote:I recall them taking about the unreliability of the flint lock and the blunderbuss, in fact I think it misfired on one of the tests. That said, they run the numbers in 1000 simulations and supposedly the final mock battle is the average.

Yeah, but as I said, they're assuming it's a beautiful day. If it's raining, that reliability rate drops to basically near-zero. And they're using modern reproductions and modern black powder, which are probably of much higher quality than the crap that a typical pirate would have.

Agreed. They don't really factor in terrain and weather, though some of the stuff they use is 'real'. The breast plate from the Sumerai was supposedly in the dude's family for hundreds of years. Not sure I believe he'd let something like that get stabbed with a spear, but...

The mock battles at the end are idiotic, because they don't really represent what they're supposed to be doing in the tests, which is when it comes down to it just talking about weapons lethality and armor effectiveness (and in dubious ways at that). That said, the mock fights at the end do have great kitsch value.

Superman wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I caught a glimpse of that episode but never bothered watching the whole thing. However, as long as we're going to mention this, it's worth pointing out that those old pirate guns were godawful shitty weapons, and should not in any way be thought of as comparable to modern firearms. Those guns were ridiculously inaccurate and stood a pretty good chance of misfiring even under ideal conditions. If it was raining, you could probably charge the guy and be fairly confident that you would reach him without a bullet coming anywhere near you, or even leaving his barrel.

Did they compare swords? I'm guessing the pirate had a cutlass and the knight had some kind of broad sword? Yeah, I'm pretty sure the knight would take the pirate in a sword fight.

Yes and guess what, according to the show cutlass = broad sword because they both cut a pig in half. I'm no expert in swords but this had me frowning my head. What can a cutlass do against a knight in full plate armor? If the knight has an itch, I doubt the cutlass can even scratch his back. Also, can a cutlass wielding pirate effectively defend himself from the full blow of a broad swoard?

I also had the feeling they overrated the pirate's guns. Sure, he got the range advantage but only the blunderbuss was able te penetrate. And that even misfired when they tested it for the first time (in a garage in the middle of the desert no less).

The whole show was such a let down for me. They don't even wet their ideas. Instead they compare false data, do not test the weapons in proper conditions and that computer program is not omniscient so its shit in shit out as usual.
Top it of with bad reenactment in the battle. Bah, I'd rather see mythbuster reruns than this shit it just makes me upset.

Knife wrote:See, I'd love a Samurai V Knight but...

Given that they had to nerf the Viking just to give the Samurai a squeaker of a marginal victory, it would be a laugher even by Spike TV's standards.

Darth Wong wrote: Yeah, but if it misfires, the pirate is a dead man. This is one of those confrontations where the weather makes a big difference. On a perfect day, the pirate probably gets off a shot against a charging knight, although if he shoots too early, he'll miss and he won't get another chance (especially if the knight is on a horse). On a rainy day, forget it. The pirate's gun won't fire, and he'll have to fight a plate-armoured knight with his pissy little toothpick sword.

I was amused that the unarmored horse wasn't bothered at all. Which reminds me: any sensible person would shoot the charging horse out from under the knight, then finish him off at point-blank range while he's trying to get up.

Elfdart wrote: I was amused that the unarmored horse wasn't bothered at all. Which reminds me: any sensible person would shoot the charging horse out from under the knight, then finish him off at point-blank range while he's trying to get up.

You'd be surprised how quickly a plate-armored knight can get up.

The whole definition of Knight is pretty much senseless. Plate-armored? Mail armored? Leather coated armored? Plate armor with several inches of padded leather armor behind it? French cuirassier armor?

I assumed Elfdart meant the stereotypical full plate armored knight, since that's who people usually imagine when somebody (incorrectly) tells them they could barely move.

I mentioned before that depending on the era, you could get a knight armed similarly or much better than a random pirate fuckface. For example, a XVIIth century knight would not only be decently armored, but also armed with various firearms, which would in addition be of way better quality than what a pirate could afford.

PeZook wrote:I assumed Elfdart meant the stereotypical full plate armored knight, since that's who people usually imagine when somebody (incorrectly) tells them they could barely move.

I mentioned before that depending on the era, you could get a knight armed similarly or much better than a random pirate fuckface. For example, a XVIIth century knight would not only be decently armored, but also armed with various firearms, which would in addition be of way better quality than what a pirate could afford.

And he'd have a good chance of not being fazed by the pistol.

Darth Wong wrote: Yeah, but as I said, they're assuming it's a beautiful day. If it's raining, that reliability rate drops to basically near-zero. And they're using modern reproductions and modern black powder, which are probably of much higher quality than the crap that a typical pirate would have.

Even with a modern flintlock, powder and flint. I get a misfire around one in three attempts. In perfect weather. If it's raining or really humid, that number goes up drastically, even under cover.

Thanas wrote:And he'd have a good chance of not being fazed by the pistol.

Yeah...even a cuirass vastly increases the odds of surviving the pistol shot: I think I posted a picture of an armor set (IIRC it was a cuirass and helmet) from a museum that had two clear bullet marks on it, with no penetration. And since the pirate would almost certainly be unarmored, well...return fire, baby!

Of course, the show dealt with a stereotypical knight wearing mail. And the pirate took a fucking ball-and-chain hit to the face and didn't die, or even get seriously impaired.

He even managed to light a grenade's fuse and throw it at the charging knight

P.S.

Found the picture: raittar infantryman's cuirass

Elfdart wrote:Given that they had to nerf the Viking just to give the Samurai a squeaker of a marginal victory, it would be a laugher even by Spike TV's standards.

Referring to the outcome of a past episode of this show as being authoritative in any way is pretty hilarious. I can't even construct a sarcastic enough statement to indicate how retarded this show is.

You mean, the Samurai won?

wautd wrote:

Superman wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I caught a glimpse of that episode but never bothered watching the whole thing. However, as long as we're going to mention this, it's worth pointing out that those old pirate guns were godawful shitty weapons, and should not in any way be thought of as comparable to modern firearms. Those guns were ridiculously inaccurate and stood a pretty good chance of misfiring even under ideal conditions. If it was raining, you could probably charge the guy and be fairly confident that you would reach him without a bullet coming anywhere near you, or even leaving his barrel.

Did they compare swords? I'm guessing the pirate had a cutlass and the knight had some kind of broad sword? Yeah, I'm pretty sure the knight would take the pirate in a sword fight.

Yes and guess what, according to the show cutlass = broad sword because they both cut a pig in half. I'm no expert in swords but this had me frowning my head. What can a cutlass do against a knight in full plate armor? If the knight has an itch, I doubt the cutlass can even scratch his back. Also, can a cutlass wielding pirate effectively defend himself from the full blow of a broad swoard?

I also had the feeling they overrated the pirate's guns. Sure, he got the range advantage but only the blunderbuss was able te penetrate. And that even misfired when they tested it for the first time (in a garage in the middle of the desert no less).

Compared to a longsword or broadsword a cutlass is also a very very clumsy weapon.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:You mean, the Samurai won?

Yeah but that's because the viking had to use akimbo trowing spears as his ranged weapon because, you know, Vikings didn't use bows

wautd wrote:

Shroom Man 777 wrote:You mean, the Samurai won?

Yeah but that's because the viking had to use akimbo trowing spears as his ranged weapon because, you know, Vikings didn't use bows

Even with that the case, I dont think a period katana could have done a damn thing against chianmail. Japanese iron is and always has been shit.

PeZook wrote:

Thanas wrote:And he'd have a good chance of not being fazed by the pistol.

Yeah...even a cuirass vastly increases the odds of surviving the pistol shot: I think I posted a picture of an armor set (IIRC it was a cuirass and helmet) from a museum that had two clear bullet marks on it, with no penetration. And since the pirate would almost certainly be unarmored, well...return fire, baby!

French cuirassier at Waterloo apparently shrugged off musket balls aimed at their chest as well. Or so one British musketeer wrote in his journal. (Of course, the British simply aimed for the horses, but it goes to show that over some distance, even muskets were a bit ineffective against armor). There is also the German "Körperpanzer" of WWI to consider, which was segmented armor distributed to Sturmtruppen.

Albeit spammy, but there's also Clint Eastwood's example in For A Fistfull of Dollars. Also replicated by Marty McFly in one of the Back to the Futures.

How good is the penetration on those pirate flintlocks and muskets, anyway? I get that they can kill an unarmored man dead in close ranges, but it's pretty much a metal ball being propelled by black powder in a metal tube, right? A bit like a smaller, nastier potato gun? With those bits we see in movies, where musket shots to the heart are blocked by books and Bibles worn in breast pockets or even shots from miniature cannonettes blocked by cigarillo boxes (like in Blackadder ), if these are in anyway even remotely true, then armoring that can withstand getting stabbed by swords or shot at by nasty arrows might be pretty good for (crappy) muskets too!

Not to mention, a pirate might be all diseased and dehydrated and full of drinking his own urine and getting scurvy after sailing for forever, whereas a knight would be well-fed and well-sexed by peasant wenches due to the wonders of a feudal lifestyle! Having only one eye, and wearing an eyepatch, would do wonders for depth perception and aiming too!