Airsoft thread (opinions/suggestions/complaints)

[Red7]

looks like strawberry fucking candy

[Dead]

looks like dog dick

[Red7]

i think its only proper assault weapon i have seen operating underwater. imgine having that puppy and living near when that retarded kuk from that passanger ship* let in whore to the bridge and they crashed on rocks cause he wanted to show off. they evacuated the coke the were smuggling but casino was open to plunder once u turn digusting, unarmed local pig divers into meatpaste.


*

► Show Spoiler

[Red7]

the fucking sights on that thing are attrocious tho even at like 10 yards its bad, would want to weld in some rail to get something usable especially in low light

2000 round sunderwater and 180 in air lifespan as elongated projectile at high speed fucks the barrel real fast

ther was real nice vid on "kalashnikov media" but jews deleted channel

[Red7]

9x18 makarov ~100 grain fmj projectile at ~900 fps = around 30 inches of gel penetration
9x19 much higher pressure round, in P++ load, 124 grain at almost 1200 fps, fag, i mean hollow point = around 12 inches of gel penetration

retards be like "fag point much better as defensive round"

[KnightoftheWind]

The best weapon is a good ol' spear. You can even LARP with it!

[Emphyrio]

The best weapon is a good ol' spear. You can even LARP with it!

Oh, Lindy. It's interesting in my history studies, discovering how often Lindy is totally, completely wrong about things he pretends to know a lot about. He really benefited from being one of the first larpers with a youtube channel. He couldn't make it starting from scratch today, or even five years ago.

[Red7]

The best weapon is a good ol' spear. You can even LARP with it!

i dont care he is fat and white lynn is nigger in my book. i wonder if 9x18 could brain buffalo point blank

[Red7]

btw i wonder since brits are so cucked they are not allowed to carry even gay size pocket knives do they need to file for permit for their melee larping gear like spear or sword

[Red7]

The best weapon is a good ol' spear. You can even LARP with it!

Oh, Lindy. It's interesting in my history studies, discovering how often Lindy is totally, completely wrong about things he pretends to know a lot about. He really benefited from being one of the first larpers with a youtube channel. He couldn't make it starting from scratch today, or even five years ago.

i noticed that soy looking kuklet was interviewing globo homo nazi ukranian scum (or canadian they are nazi ruled anyway) on his gay channel.
thats all i need to know.

[Emphyrio]

btw i wonder since brits are so cucked they are not allowed to carry even gay size pocket knives do they need to file for permit for their melee larping gear like spear or sword

Scholagladiatoria guy is apperantly an expert on cucked uk knoife laws

https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/UK-machete-law
https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/uk-curved-sword-law


looks like the law is that curved swords made after 1954 are banned.

[Red7]

btw i wonder since brits are so cucked they are not allowed to carry even gay size pocket knives do they need to file for permit for their melee larping gear like spear or sword

Scholagladiatoria guy is apperantly an expert on cucked uk knoife laws

https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/UK-machete-law
https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/uk-curved-sword-law


looks like the law is that curved swords made after 1954 are banned.

Proposed updates to the Offensive Weapons Act 2019



The UK Government announced in April 2023 that it was looking at new legislation to specifically cover (and ban) certain types of large knife and machete.



This affects all sorts of bladed article, including many widely used in DIY, crafts, gardening, bushcraft, cooking, fishing and construction. While this also affects martial arts, sports and historical re-enactment, this potentially affects a much larger group of activities and jobs. This could affect objects from fillet knives to kebab knives, pruning saws to billhooks, re-enactment swords to scissors.

i love it

i predict soon only dildos will be allowed as large tools to be legal so new industry of special shaped dildos will spring out to fill all purposes. it will be fascinating to observe

[Red7]

this thing hates og mags it seems

[Red7]

[Red7]

those dog dick looking bullets/polymer coated are insufferable cunt to handload.
its very easy to scrap thin polymer shit with case edge which defeates whole purpose; reduced friction and higher v with same p due to lubricating dog jizz factor.

[Cipher]

btw i wonder since brits are so cucked they are not allowed to carry even gay size pocket knives do they need to file for permit for their melee larping gear like spear or sword

Scholagladiatoria guy is apperantly an expert on cucked uk knoife laws

https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/UK-machete-law
https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/uk-curved-sword-law


looks like the law is that curved swords made after 1954 are banned.

He is a phonie and a woke libtard.

He thinks he knows more than anyone else because he does HEMA. But he talks about stuff he has no idea or experience about, like fighting in armor while he has never actually wore a full plate harness.

Also he tries to weasel his way out of admiting that he is wrong by screaming "context!" even when talking about stuff he know nothing about.

It wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't so smug and posh about believing himself an expert on all things related to medieval arms and armor, but he is insufferable.

[Emphyrio]

btw i wonder since brits are so cucked they are not allowed to carry even gay size pocket knives do they need to file for permit for their melee larping gear like spear or sword

Scholagladiatoria guy is apperantly an expert on cucked uk knoife laws

https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/UK-machete-law
https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/uk-curved-sword-law


looks like the law is that curved swords made after 1954 are banned.

He is a phonie and a woke libtard.

He thinks he knows more than anyone else because he does HEMA. But he talks about stuff he has no idea or experience about, like fighting in armor while he has never actually wore a full plate harness.

Also he tries to weasel his way out of admiting that he is wrong by screaming "context!" even when talking about stuff he know nothing about.

It wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't so smug and posh about believing himself an expert on all things related to medieval arms and armor, but he is insufferable.

What is he wrong about? I've never heard him say anything that's obviously wrong like Lindy does, and besides his HEMA he seem well-read in history including lots of primary sources. But I don't watch his 30 minute long videos very often either...

[Cipher]

Scholagladiatoria guy is apperantly an expert on cucked uk knoife laws

https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/UK-machete-law
https://www.matt-easton.co.uk/uk-curved-sword-law


looks like the law is that curved swords made after 1954 are banned.

He is a phonie and a woke libtard.

He thinks he knows more than anyone else because he does HEMA. But he talks about stuff he has no idea or experience about, like fighting in armor while he has never actually wore a full plate harness.

Also he tries to weasel his way out of admiting that he is wrong by screaming "context!" even when talking about stuff he know nothing about.

It wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't so smug and posh about believing himself an expert on all things related to medieval arms and armor, but he is insufferable.

What is he wrong about? I've never heard him say anything that's obviously wrong like Lindy does, and besides his HEMA he seem well-read in history including lots of primary sources. But I don't watch his 30 minute long videos very often either...

Too many things to point on this post.

But, a quick example is a fairly recent video about using a mace being better than a sword against armor. Which is false and a very common myth repeated by people that have never wore a full plate harness.

A mace was used mainly in horse back, to strike heads of enemies fleeing after a rout.

Or by local law enforcement, so the mace will be effective in fighting them but not killing them like a sword or spear would, since a wound that causes bleeding could lead to death due to blood loss or infection.

A mace is slow and has terrible reach compared to a sword. A sword can be used to stap through the gaps or armor, to strike at the head with the mordhau just like a mace would, but even better due to the extended reach, and also used to wrestle which its going to be a big factor when the two combatants are wearing full plate harness.

A mace won't be effective hitting an opponent unless its the head. And the reach of the mace makes it very difficult to hit the head of an opponent with a longer weapon.

That's why armored men at arms would use longer weapons like longswords, pollaxes or halberds. The point of a pollaxe/halberd could stab through the helmet slit for the eyes or the neck if the neck wasn't fully protected.

The longer reach allows the weapon to hit with the beack or the hammer ends on the head where it does the most damage.

Arguably, a sword would be better than a mace when facing an opponent fully decked in plate harness.

Matt, of course, just blabbers on and on saying how the mace would be better against an armored opponent than a sword, because he is talking out of his ass, as always, since he has no experience with full plate harness.

Even the treatises show armored opponents dueling with swords and stabbing each other on the visor, neck or arm pits.

The treatises he likes to tout as gospel. Yeah, even those.

Like I said, he does practice HEMA so he knows just enough to appear knowleadgeable to most people, but he is wrong more often than not and he NEVER admits it.

If you call him out, he will delete your comment. If your comment gets enough traction before he deletes it, then he will respond with some bullshit answer that boils down to "in the CONTEXT of the topic of the video, I was still right, even though I was actually wrong!"

And also he is a woke douchebag who finds no problem turning white historical figures black because John Wayne played Genghis Khan in a movie 100 years ago.

[Emphyrio]

He is a phonie and a woke libtard.

He thinks he knows more than anyone else because he does HEMA. But he talks about stuff he has no idea or experience about, like fighting in armor while he has never actually wore a full plate harness.

Also he tries to weasel his way out of admiting that he is wrong by screaming "context!" even when talking about stuff he know nothing about.

It wouldn't be so bad if he wasn't so smug and posh about believing himself an expert on all things related to medieval arms and armor, but he is insufferable.

What is he wrong about? I've never heard him say anything that's obviously wrong like Lindy does, and besides his HEMA he seem well-read in history including lots of primary sources. But I don't watch his 30 minute long videos very often either...

Too many things to point on this post.

But, a quick example is a fairly recent video about using a mace being better than a sword against armor. Which is false and a very common myth repeated by people that have never wore a full plate harness.

A mace was used mainly in horse back, to strike heads of enemies fleeing after a rout.

Or by local law enforcement, so the mace will be effective in fighting them but not killing them like a sword or spear would, since a wound that causes bleeding could lead to death due to blood loss or infection.

A mace is slow and has terrible reach compared to a sword. A sword can be used to stap through the gaps or armor, to strike at the head with the mordhau just like a mace would, but even better due to the extended reach, and also used to wrestle which its going to be a big factor when the two combatants are wearing full plate harness.

A mace won't be effective hitting an opponent unless its the head. And the reach of the mace makes it very difficult to hit the head of an opponent with a longer weapon.

That's why armored men at arms would use longer weapons like longswords, pollaxes or halberds. The point of a pollaxe/halberd could stab through the helmet slit for the eyes or the neck if the neck wasn't fully protected.

The longer reach allows the weapon to hit with the beack or the hammer ends on the head where it does the most damage.

Arguably, a sword would be better than a mace when facing an opponent fully decked in plate harness.

Matt, of course, just blabbers on and on saying how the mace would be better against an armored opponent than a sword, because he is talking out of his ass, as always, since he has no experience with full plate harness.

Even the treatises show armored opponents dueling with swords and stabbing each other on the visor, neck or arm pits.

The treatises he likes to tout as gospel. Yeah, even those.

Like I said, he does practice HEMA so he knows just enough to appear knowleadgeable to most people, but he is wrong more often than not and he NEVER admits it.

If you call him out, he will delete your comment. If your comment gets enough traction before he deletes it, then he will respond with some bullshit answer that boils down to "in the CONTEXT of the topic of the video, I was still right, even though I was actually wrong!"

And also he is a woke douchebag who finds no problem turning white historical figures black because John Wayne played Genghis Khan in a movie 100 years ago.

Matt in 2008:
"My circa.1410 English harness, by Plessis Armoury. It is a work in progress and I need to alter my gauntlets and get a new bascinet."



Matt's pfp from his Pinterest, appears to be at some larp or reenactment event:

[Red7]

i wanted to write those are just idiots playing as idiots and not applicable weaponry/armor but then when i think about it england impending civil war may be mostly melee with phone books and cookware ducktaped to body parts.

[Cipher]

What is he wrong about? I've never heard him say anything that's obviously wrong like Lindy does, and besides his HEMA he seem well-read in history including lots of primary sources. But I don't watch his 30 minute long videos very often either...

Too many things to point on this post.

But, a quick example is a fairly recent video about using a mace being better than a sword against armor. Which is false and a very common myth repeated by people that have never wore a full plate harness.

A mace was used mainly in horse back, to strike heads of enemies fleeing after a rout.

Or by local law enforcement, so the mace will be effective in fighting them but not killing them like a sword or spear would, since a wound that causes bleeding could lead to death due to blood loss or infection.

A mace is slow and has terrible reach compared to a sword. A sword can be used to stap through the gaps or armor, to strike at the head with the mordhau just like a mace would, but even better due to the extended reach, and also used to wrestle which its going to be a big factor when the two combatants are wearing full plate harness.

A mace won't be effective hitting an opponent unless its the head. And the reach of the mace makes it very difficult to hit the head of an opponent with a longer weapon.

That's why armored men at arms would use longer weapons like longswords, pollaxes or halberds. The point of a pollaxe/halberd could stab through the helmet slit for the eyes or the neck if the neck wasn't fully protected.

The longer reach allows the weapon to hit with the beack or the hammer ends on the head where it does the most damage.

Arguably, a sword would be better than a mace when facing an opponent fully decked in plate harness.

Matt, of course, just blabbers on and on saying how the mace would be better against an armored opponent than a sword, because he is talking out of his ass, as always, since he has no experience with full plate harness.

Even the treatises show armored opponents dueling with swords and stabbing each other on the visor, neck or arm pits.

The treatises he likes to tout as gospel. Yeah, even those.

Like I said, he does practice HEMA so he knows just enough to appear knowleadgeable to most people, but he is wrong more often than not and he NEVER admits it.

If you call him out, he will delete your comment. If your comment gets enough traction before he deletes it, then he will respond with some bullshit answer that boils down to "in the CONTEXT of the topic of the video, I was still right, even though I was actually wrong!"

And also he is a woke douchebag who finds no problem turning white historical figures black because John Wayne played Genghis Khan in a movie 100 years ago.

Matt in 2008:
"My circa.1410 English harness, by Plessis Armoury. It is a work in progress and I need to alter my gauntlets and get a new bascinet."



Matt's pfp from his Pinterest, appears to be at some larp or reenactment event:

Then that's even worse. Because he has worn full plate harness and is still claiming a mace is better than a sword and that a flanged mace would cause harm if you hit a shoulder or an elbow.

Those are heavily armored parts. A groin, an armpit or the head, then yes. But that's also true for a sword.

Full plate harness is extremely effect to mitigate damage. And like I said, the mace has terrible reach and due to its weight its very clunky. A sword has better reach, way faster in the attack and also can be used to deal concussive damage with the pommel or quillons using the mordhau technice.

Your post only proves I was wrong about Matt never wearing armor. Nothing else was disproven. However, unlike Matt, I will admit I was wrong about that very specific point and I appreciate and thank you for that correction.

[Red7]

Your post only proves I was wrong about Matt never wearing armor. Nothing else was disproven. However, unlike Matt, I will admit I was wrong about that very specific point and I appreciate and thank you for that correction.

may i ask how u know its actually armor? cause it looks like 0,4 mm metal sheet to me wich i could pierce with cold steel countertac. u would have to put on weight like plate set would weigh around 40 kg

which reminds that cold steel made best dagger profile possible but they dont make it on their bigger shit cause retards were crying "it dont look nice on other side buuu"
it has like C shaped blade profile which makes less drag and opens wound way more than typical diamond cross section. its also lighter and curvature disperse stress better compared to flat design


it dont show other side but its concave
its nightmare to sharpen but it dont have to be razor sharp to work. for typical knife use is even worse than typical dagger tho as blade is at angle and curved

[Red7]

the concealed thing with fixed blade is imo wrong philosphy of use in most cases. one of biggest advantages is immediate deployment but defeating clothing if u have it on belt ruins that. fixed blade must be wore externally imo, im faster with deplying folder from pocket than fixed blade under jacket.

[Cipher]

Your post only proves I was wrong about Matt never wearing armor. Nothing else was disproven. However, unlike Matt, I will admit I was wrong about that very specific point and I appreciate and thank you for that correction.

may i ask how u know its actually armor? cause it looks like 0,4 mm metal sheet to me wich i could pierce with cold steel countertac. u would have to put on weight like plate set would weigh around 40 kg

which reminds that cold steel made best dagger profile possible but they dont make it on their bigger shit cause retards were crying "it dont look nice on other side buuu"
it has like C shaped blade profile which makes less drag and opens wound way more than typical diamond cross section. its also lighter and curvature disperse stress better compared to flat design


it dont show other side but its concave
its nightmare to sharpen but it dont have to be razor sharp to work. for typical knife use is even worse than typical dagger tho as blade is at angle and curved

I am taking the reply from Emphyrio at face value. Matt could be wearing LARP aluminium armor or it could be a hardened steel full plate harness.

The reason why I am taking it at face value is because it doesn't really matter. What Matt said about maces being better than swords against armor is not based on evidence, its based on his own ideas. The medieval treatises show combatants in full plate harness fighting with swords.





Taken from the Page of the Codex Wallerstein showing a half-sword thrust against a Mordhau. (Plate 214)

Here are some other images:














We have evidence that details that knights and men at arms, fully armored with plate harness, used long weapons in the battlefield. Such as polearms, like spears, pikes, halberds, billhooks and pollaxes, as well as large two handed or hand and a half swords such as the Spadone, Montante, Zweihander, Warsword or Longsword. Keep in mind most of these terms are modern, in their time and place, these tools for war would just be called "a sword" or a "warhammer" or "a spear".

The reason is that reach is really king in melee. If you have ever dueled with medieval weapons against another combatant you will quickly realize that reach is very powerful. The same with a full plate harness. Now, this doesn't mean that a soldier armed with a halberd and full plate harness cannot ever lose against an opponent armed with a dagger and a gambeson or no armor, but the difference in reach means that the halberdier can attack the dagger fighter in a position of confidence since the dagger fighter can only defend. In this example, the halberdier is never in a position where the dagger fighter can counter attack, so the halberdier never risks a double, meaning hitting the opponent while being hit at the same time. Additionally, the superior protection of the full plate harness means that even if the dagger fighter closes in, the halberdier has a very good chance to avoid damage as long as it uses footwork to deflect, dodge or just take the attack from the dagger in a strong part of his armor and not in a gap or weaker part.

Yes, this is a very extreme and lopsided example. But it is just to show the two sides of the spectrum. A longsword opponent can close in into a spearman, but the swordsman is at a disadvantage. HE has to close in. The spearman can attack without risking retaliation from the longsword and as long as the spearman has enough room to retreat, backstep or sidestep, then the spearman has the initiative and will always dominate the engagement. The swordsman has to find an opportunity to close the range gap and then negate the reach advantage that the spearman has. If both combatants are fully armored with plate harness, then the reach difference is still there but it is lessened, as the protection of the full harness makes it so the swordsman can be more aggressive in his attempts to close in.

Spears and swords are very lively in the hands of a trained combatant due to their weight distribution. No matter how you construct them, a mace will always be clunky and slow, requiring the combatant to wind up the attack to deliver the most powerful blow. With a sword or a spear, you can launch quick attacks, akin to jabs for a boxer. These pokes are useful to keep the pressure on the defender and also can be easily turned into faints, as the spear and the sword are lively and easy to change directions on the fly. A mace, because it has all the weight on the top of the weapon, cannot do this. You need to commit to the strike.

This problem is also faced by weapons like a lucerne hammer or a pollaxe, the big, big difference is that those are longer weapons. A pollaxe and halberd traditionally would have a spike at the bottom, so you would use that spike to prod and poke, like a spear, while holding the business end of the weapon over your head, ready for a powerful overhead strike. And then when the opponent opens his guard you would deliver the strike, aiming at the head or the shoulders. Additionally, due to the longer reach and the usage of two hands, the combatant can use more leverage and deliver a more devastating blow than the mace ever could.

Maces are not terrible. They are very effective weapons. The thing is, as far as I can tell, they were used either on horseback or in civilian affairs or as sidearms for foot soldiers. The same as a rapier. The rapier is an excellent sword but as far as I can tell it was rarely, if ever, used in the battlefield and was more prominent as a civilian self-defense implement. Maces were used in a very similar manner as police batons are used in modern times. To subdue an assailant in a mostly non-lethal manner. A mace strike on the legs or arms would rarely be fatal. A cut from a sword or a thrust from a spear can be lethal, wherever it hits, due to blood loss and/or infection.

And yes, two handed versions of the flanged mace existed, such as morningstars in a long haft like a polearm, or lucerne hammers, bec de corbin and other types of warhammers. But in Matt's video he always talks and references the one handed flanged mace and specifically mentions that it is better and easier to use against armor than a sword. His points are that the sword requires specialized techniques to be effective against armor and the mace doesn't and that the mace striking the head, the shoulder or the elbow would deliver damage to the armored opponent where a sword wouldn't, and that's just wrong.

A shoulder plate or pauldron or spaulder will most likely make it so the mace's blow glances unless the armored combatant is just standing there taking the blow and even then, depending on the quality of steel and craftmanship or the armorsmith, it would be mostly impervious to such blows even with direct hits. Only the head is really subject to concussive damage in a debilitating capacity. The chest is the strongest part of the harness, followed by the shoulders and the elbows and knees. You can even see in Matt's own picture, his elbows and knees protrude and are not flat into his joints, the reason for that is to deflect blows but also to have enough room for the padding and steel to absorb the energy and mitigate most, if not all, the damage.

Soldiers in medieval times would go to war in the same way as soldiers in modern times. You don't go to war with a knife or a pistol. You bring your rifle, a longarm, and a sidearm as a your backup weapon, such as a handgun and a knife. A man at arms or knight would do exactly the same. A longarm, usually a polearm such as a spear, glaive, halberd, pollaxe or billhook, and a sidearm such an arming sword, a falchion or a knife like a dagger.

The type of sidearm used would depend on many factors, such as the money you had to buy your kit and the functionality of your main weapon. An archer would be encumbered to draw a longbow with a longsword on his side, so it would be better to have either a dirk or a dagger or a falchion or other shorter sword. His primary role is to be a skirmisher and to harass infantry with missile fire so it makes sense to have a smaller side arm.

In short, there is a lot, and I do mean a lot of nuance into medieval arms and armor. I am not an expert, by any means. But, the thing is I don't claim to be. Matt and many people like him make a living by LARPing as experts when they are not. And, like I said, we can all be wrong and its is a manly thing to admit our own mistakes and wrong ideas and correct them. The problem here is that Matt never admits when he is wrong so he pontificates from his ivory tower claiming to be the absolute expert on all things related to medieval arms and armor when he is not and he is more wrong than he is right.

At the end of the day, a lot of this knowledge is based on assumptions and interpretation. Very few things are clear cut. Matt should be humble and pose his arguments as educated guesses at best. But, when challenged for his opinions on these subjects, like I said, he will either delete your comment or, if your comment already has garnered enough traction, will reply with a bullshit answer that amounts to him saying he was still right somehow.

There is a good reason why he has been around the block for as long as many other youtubers of his style of content while still having less Subcribers and views than them. And no, this is not saying that he is wrong because he is less popular, I am saying that he is less popular because of the way he approaches the content.

Also, something that is not a matter of opinion is his many hissy fits about people complaining of race swapping historical figures by saying that no one complained when this happened in the past, his most common example being John Wayne playing Genghis Khan. He is very woke and basically is a poster child of all the libtard talking points. He is A-OK with making Aquiles or Cleopatra black because hey, white people played non-white historical figures in the 50s so its all fair game!

[Red7]

thats badass without gloves

i have read that soft metal plate could be advantage as blade would stuck rather than slide of possibly hit joint etc
but i guess would also easier to penetrate. i cant imagine it would penetrate much tho unless the metal just teared open.

about the bald soylet i wouldnt care; anyone who clearly cant curl 30 kg is not worth listening to, t levels so low only good for cumguzzling.


whats your fav edc blade btw. and should i buy that spear mounting knife from cold steel in case i run out of ammo. i mean the spearing of some unsuspecting iphone user would be much better than taking down water buffalo with one

[Red7]

[Red7]

adding rubber bands actually considerably improve practical accuracy on most aks. which makes u wonder. why they fuck they just didnt use bit stiffer spring so bolt wont bottom like a camel dick on instagram star. still better than hk416 im sure

[somerandomdude]

thats badass without gloves

i have read that soft metal plate could be advantage as blade would stuck rather than slide of possibly hit joint etc
but i guess would also easier to penetrate. i cant imagine it would penetrate much tho unless the metal just teared open.

Swords aren't ideal against plate, they never have been. Playing games trying to use a sword as a spear to try to isolate weak points or gaps in armor is pointless when there's better weapons to use against plate such as war hammers, maces, picks, or halberds.

I'm in favor of practical martial arts, what's shown in that image is not practical and looks to be nothing more than theatrics.

Defeating plate armor is as simple as:

[Red7]

thats badass without gloves

i have read that soft metal plate could be advantage as blade would stuck rather than slide of possibly hit joint etc
but i guess would also easier to penetrate. i cant imagine it would penetrate much tho unless the metal just teared open.

Swords aren't ideal against plate, they never have been. Playing games trying to use a sword as a spear to try to isolate weak points or gaps in armor is pointless when there's better weapons to use against plate such as war hammers, maces, picks, or halberds.

I'm in favor of practical martial arts, what's shown in that image is not practical and looks to be nothing more than theatrics.

Defeating plate armor is as simple as:

that looks like a cold steel war hammer. one of many in their very practical products line

btw i dont care much about antics but i dont consider any melee soldier icon without shield seriously. axes/hammers are very ineffective becuase their limited surface of impact and tendency to catch/prevent quick follow strike. also crossbows supposedly were doing pretty well against most old armors. and if u smash some1 in head with hammer i dont think u need to penetrate to get effect, but hitting it would be hard.

the important question would be, is warhammer good solution to breaking reinforced plexi glass in jewelery store. or getting thru armored limo car window.



oh no. does this mean i need ap ammo now?

[Cipher]

thats badass without gloves

i have read that soft metal plate could be advantage as blade would stuck rather than slide of possibly hit joint etc
but i guess would also easier to penetrate. i cant imagine it would penetrate much tho unless the metal just teared open.

Swords aren't ideal against plate, they never have been. Playing games trying to use a sword as a spear to try to isolate weak points or gaps in armor is pointless when there's better weapons to use against plate such as war hammers, maces, picks, or halberds.

I'm in favor of practical martial arts, what's shown in that image is not practical and looks to be nothing more than theatrics.

Defeating plate armor is as simple as:

Halberds and pollaxes, yes. Maces, not so much.

This is because not every attack can be a haymaker. Even in contact sports, without any armor, fighters do not throw haymakers every single time. They use jabs and footwork to set up the big attacks.

There's 2 main reasons for this:

1.- Big attacks that use all your might and body are very tiring and drain a lot of stamina, which is a finite resource in the battlefield.

2.- When launching such an attack, you have to fully commit. You cannot change directions, sidestep or defend yourself.

This is why the spear and the sword are valuable, since they are very lively, you can poke, feint, change directions and turn an attack into a parry or riposte.

Halberds and pollaxes have the reach to be viable in the battlefield. Maces, however, do not. Specially the one being discussed in my post, the one handed flanged mace.

Such a weapon is very clunky, due to its weight distribution, and so you would need to wind up to swing them effectively, which means that you have to commit to that attack, leaving yourself open to retaliation from your opponent. And, because those maces have very little reach, it means you cannot even strike at the opponent if the opponent has a longer reach weapon than you, like a longsword or a spear.

Reach is king. If I can attack you without you being able to attack me than I have the initiative and the advantage. Additionally, because the weight distribution of the mace is very lopsided towards the head, that means the attack is very easy to deflect since once you have launched the attack your arm lacks the strength to control the direction of the weapon.

This is why pollaxes and halberds, the blunt weapons that actually were used in the battlefield, were long and used with both hands. The reach advantage is very important, but also the fact that with two hands you exert more control on the direction of the weapon and you can create greater leverage to deliver more devastating blows.

Additionally, pollaxes had a spike at the bottom, the part that is very light and lively, and their techniques involve using that spike to prod and poke with light jabs and use feints to open up the guard of the opponent and then deliver the big overhead swing with the hammer head or the beak of the halberd/pollaxe/lucerne hammer.


Do you have actual experience dueling with medieval arms and armor or are you basing your response in Youtube video knowledge? I ask because if you have ever wielded a mace in real life, you would realize that due to its weight distribution it is very slow on the attack and very short. Not an ideal weapon for the battlefield.

The reason why I ask is because you are listing maces alongside pollaxes and halberds as weapons used to fight armored opponents while this would not really be viable. That is, those weapons are not equal and do not perform equally. Pollaxes/Halberds/Billhooks/Lucerne Hammers/Bec de corbin are very similar, a polearm with a spear point and a combination of a hammer head, an axe head or a beak. Their techniques are very much interchangeable.

A mace is usually a one handed weapon with very short reach. Used primarily in local civil law enforcement in the same manner as police batons are used in the modern era. To subdue an assailant in a mostly non-lethal manner in a way swords and spears would have a hard time doing so.

With flanged mace, unless its striking at the weaker parts of the armor or gaps, the opponent would barely feel such a blow in his body. Plate harness was extremely effective at mitigating damage. Due to the layers of padding below the plate and the hardened steel itself, you would feel something pushing you, but very little to no concussive force would actually harm you. Meaning, you would feel the push but it would not hurt or it would barely hurt. Not enough to affect you.

If you are hitting an armored opponent with a blow that barely hinders them, while they are thrusting the tip of their sword into the slit of the visor of your helmet right into your eyes, thrust me, you would lose that encounter every single time.

And that's the thing, spears and swords are very lively, that is, easy to control, so it is very easy to use a spear or a sword to strike at the weak parts or gaps in the armor, while a flanged mace could only really deal any amount of significant damage if it strikes the opponents head, but with its pitiful reach, it would be extremely difficult for you to strike their head without them poking your eyes first, since both the spear and the sword have superior reach.


That's where halberds and pollaxes come in. Since the reach advantage has been equalized, the opponent cannot go for the eyes so easily and now the experience and skill with their weapons and their conditioning to maintain good footwork are the key factors on who would be the winner.

And so, if any real damage requires precision strikes, that is, hitting the opponent on the weaker parts of the armor or the gaps, then a weapon that is more lively, that is, easier to control and change directions would be more desirable.

Because, remember, the opponent is not going to stand and wait for you to hit him. That's turn based videogame logic. The opponent is moving around, keeping his guard, poking you, feinting, trying to open your guard to strike. Keeping his distance if he has the longer reach. Trying to maneuver himself into a better position and outmaneuver you into a worse position, as not all battlefield terrain is made equal. You are not fighting in a flat ring. If he outmaneuvers you so you backstep into a stone and trip, you are dead. If he corners you into a wall or a tree, you are dead. If you drain your stamina and gas out because you keep attempting to close the reach gap but are unable to, you are dead.

You need to remember that a live duel is not a vacuum and so just because a mace could theoretically inflict damage that could go through the plate armor and reach the tender flesh in a vacuum, doesn't mean its an effective weapon in a live scenario.

I posted the images to show that there is evidence from the treatises that shows extensive techniques on how to use a longsword to fight armored opponents which shows that this was done. Those same treatises show halberds/pollaxes as well. But, not one handed maces. Now, I am not saying that maces weren't used because they are not shown in the treatises, I am saying that the idea that swords and spears were not used against full plate harness is false, as there are numerous treatises showing techniques on how to fight opponents using swords against full plate harness. You can also find many evidence of men at arms fielding swords into the battlefield and also written accounts of soldiers using spears and swords in the battlefield even when facing opponents in full plate harness.

Swords and spears have always been a mainstay in the battlefield. Halberds/Pollaxes were later developed and also feature prominently. Maces are a different story altogether and even after their development, you would still see one handed swords used as sidearms repeatedly instead of maces.

The idea that maces are very effective against armor is a myth as much as the idea that swords were extremely ineffective against armor. The myth about swords is that you can't cut through plate, but that's a wrong assumption. You wouldn't use a sword to cut through the plate in the first place. That's why swords remain very prominent tools of war in the battlefield. Because they can do it all. They can cut, they can thrust, they are very lively, they can parry and deflect strikes really well, they can strike with the pommel or quillons to deliver concussive force.

They are the perfect sidearm for a medieval battlefield. And so one would use a primary polearm that was designed to defeat the type of enemy you would engage, be it a spear, a glaive or a halberd.