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 ; Wed, 9 May 2001 00:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
for ;
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
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