The best weapon that never was

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Dear God I hope this is short for raccoon.

What else were you thinking of?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[Inquartata]

Sword in one hand, shield in the other.

Shields had all but gone into disuse by the middle of the 14th century, apart from pavises for crossbowmen and for siege use. The armor itself had become sophisticated enough to do the job all on its own by then.

[BenTheEMOP]

Can some explain the physics of the idea that the fork would have less thrusting power because it has multiple tines?

It seems that the central tine should in theory have as much thrust as a single spear point. The disadvantage would not be spreading out the force of the thrust, but rather the size of the point versus a regular spear.

It seems reasonable that the other tines might not have as much for behind them, but they would hardly provide enough aerodynamic or inertial resistance to significantly reduce the power of impact behind the weapon.

The only way I can think of the other tines leading to a reduction of the force is the multiple points of penetration would lead to more resistance from the target.

But I don't see how they reduce the thrust's force.

As far as the maneuverability of the weapon -- and granted peasants weren't well trained -- one could tie up an opponent's weapon with the tines and then swing around the back as though it were a staff and bludgeon the opponent kind of like soldiers are trained to do with bayonets.

[finnfence]

Can some explain the physics of the idea that the fork would have less thrusting power because it has multiple tines?

It seems that the central tine should in theory have as much thrust as a single spear point. The disadvantage would not be spreading out the force of the thrust, but rather the size of the point versus a regular spear.

It seems reasonable that the other tines might not have as much for behind them, but they would hardly provide enough aerodynamic or inertial resistance to significantly reduce the power of impact behind the weapon.

The only way I can think of the other tines leading to a reduction of the force is the multiple points of penetration would lead to more resistance from the target.

But I don't see how they reduce the thrust's force.

As far as the maneuverability of the weapon -- and granted peasants weren't well trained -- one could tie up an opponent's weapon with the tines and then swing around the back as though it were a staff and bludgeon the opponent kind of like soldiers are trained to do with bayonets.

I can't explain it in physics terms, but consider that it's like the reason why it hurts so much more if someone stomps on your foot with a ladies' high-heeled shoe, versus how it feels if they stomp with the same power using a tennis shoe. Say you stomp with X pounds of force. In the case of the tennis shoe, it's spread out over a large area - the whole bottom of the shoe, which all impacts your foot at the same time. The force per square inch is pretty low. If the person uses a high-heeled shoe, the same force is packed into a spot only about a quarter of an inch square. The part of your foot that receives the impact is going to get much more force per square inch than if a tennis shoe were being used.

The idea is that if you have four tines on the fork, you divide the punch four ways. If you use a spear, all the force goes onto that one little point.

[Inquartata]

one could tie up an opponent's weapon with the tines

Easier said than done, I'm afraid. The extra weight of the head would make it slower to maneuver than a spear, and much slower than a sword. An axe would just blow right on through it, probably taking off the tines in the process.

Meanwhile if you're a member of a peasant levy, you're almost certainly part of an amorphous group of other men, probably all using similar arms, and you're as likely to tangle up your fellow's weapon as the foe's.