Path: spln!lex!extra.newsguy.com!lotsanews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!gemini.tycho.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Approved: sci-military-moderated@retro.com Return-Path: news@lana.pathlink.com Delivery-Date: Wed May 09 00:52:49 2001 Delivery-Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 00:52:48 -0700 for <sci-military-moderated@retro.com>; Wed, 9 May 2001 00:52:42 -0700 (PDT) for <sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org>; Wed, 9 May 2001 03:38:50 -0400 (EDT) Wed, 9 May 2001 00:38:15 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from news) To: sci-military-moderated@moderators.isc.org From: TTK Ciar <ttk@typhon.NOSPAM-REMOVE-THIS-AND-FRUIT.ciar.orange.org> Newsgroups: sci.military.moderated Subject: Comparative effectiveness of shock weapons Date: 9 May 2001 07:38:15 GMT Organization: Subtle, but there Message-ID: <9das5701431@news2.newsguy.com> X-NNTP-Posting-Host: news.newsdawg.com Content-Length: 5659 Lines: 96 NNTP-Posting-Host: 0e09aa63.newsreader.tycho.net X-Trace: 989516982 gemini.tycho.net 39595 205.179.181.194 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tycho.net Xref: spln sci.military.moderated:37192 Recent discussions on talk.politics.guns regarding the frequency of would-be gun users missing their targets in a combat situation, and the lack of consistent lethality from hits, reminded me of this part of a book I read a while ago -- From Lawrence H. Keeley's _War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage_, ISBN 0-19-511912-6, pages 49-50: "Students of military weapons usually divide them into two classes: fire (or missile) and shock. Fire weapons injure with projectiles -- such as arrows, javelins, darts, stones, or pellets -- and they are effective at some distance. Shock weapons -- for example, lances, clubs, axes, and swords -- require contact between warriors and injure by blows or cuts. [..] "No primitive or ancient fire weapon can surpass the accuracy and striking power of shock weapons.[14] The accuracy of shock weapons is the result of trigonometry and guidance. Most of us experience little difficulty in squarely striking the head of a finishing nail even with a tack hammer, but replicating this feat with a rifle bullet fired from just a few yards away is extraordinarily difficult. Tiny differences in the firing angles of missiles rapidly compound with distance into large variations in the impact point. The heavier weight of shock weapons means greater inertia [sic], which contributes to accuracy since they are not subject to diversion by wind, and they impart a greater force at impact than that generated by necessarily lighter missiles. Once a missile is released, it is unguided, whereas a shock weapon's path can be adjusted to track the target. A single blow from such weapons can severely wound or kill outright an unarmored opponent. It is no surprise, then, to read of skulls being crushed, brains dashed out, limbs fractured or severed, and torsos pierced through by such weapons. For example, an Aztec warrior could decapitate a Spanish horse with a single blow of his obsidian-edged sword-club.[15] Although primitive projectiles may be ''improved'' with poison or other features that increase the likelihood of wound infection and severity (see discussion following), shock weapons are usually sufficiently lethal that any improvement is superfluous. The potential ''rate of fire'' of shock weapons is also very rapid, limited only by the weight of the weapon, the reflex speed, and muscular endurance of their wielder. "On the negative side, the maximum range of shock arms is seldom greater than a couple of meters. Long lances or pikes can double this reach, but only at the expense of accuracy, mobility, and impact. Moreover, these very short ranges create severe psychological and social difficulties that render shock weapons the weapon of choice among only the more severely disciplined armies of high chiefdoms and states. These weapons are very dangerous to an opponent, but they put their wielder at great risk. To employ them against a comparatively armed opponent, a warrior must close to a distance where both parties are in maximum danger of being killed or terribly wounded. And more important, to reach this closure the warrior must pass through the killing zone of the enemy's fire weapons, with each step forward increasing their accuracy and their impact force. It is no accident that the use of body armor is highly correlated with the use of shock weapons, since the former can dramatically decrease the risks of injury from missiles and can ameliorate those from close combat.[16]. Many groups equipped themselves with shock weapons but employed them only to dispatch fleeing or captured foes after these had been routed. Only units disciplined by training and fear of punishment could be expected to traverse the missile zone and close for shock action with an unbroken enemy." [14] Gabriel and Metz 1991: 56-75. [15] Driver and Massey 1957: 357. [16] See Appendix, Table 3.9 [sic; actually table 3.1]. (Otterbein 1989: Appendix D) (Copied without permission; mistakes unnoted are likely mine.) I would be interested in hearing people's opinions here regarding the relative lethality of shock weapons (eg, knife, machete, or metal pipe) vs modern day firearms (handguns, shotguns, and assault rifles). Here in sci.military.moderated I read about the impulse of a rifle bullet hitting a helmet breaking the wearer's neck, and the shock wave from a bullet's impact damaging vital organs, et al, which is in stark contrast with the situations referred to in talk.politics.guns, eg: http://augustachronicle.com/stories/050201/met_098-6359.000.shtml .. which seem to lead credence to the notion that shock weapons are still more lethal than firearms. I realize that the wielders of the guns being talked about are very different in the two newsgroups; the accuracy and calm of professional riflemen seems likely to be much better than that of a handgun-wielding criminal (an assumption on my part). Still, professional soldiers today can find themselves in combat environments where the enemy could get very close before the soldier knows that they are under attack (eg, in a city or dense jungle), which seems to counter Keele's assertion that "[..] the warrior must pass through the killing zone of the enemy's fire weapons, with each step forward increasing their accuracy and their impact force". It also occurs to me that if a body of soldiers were engaged in a close melee, they might not be able to use their automatic weapons for fear of hitting each other. Any relevant comments, thoughts, opinions, anecdotes, et al welcome. -- TTK