Rescaled Melee Damage and Couched Lances.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only with a couched lance the thrust is limited, it's not quite the same as weapon strikes (which is probably why it's a separate skill after all), don't get me wrong It all adds in I'm sure, but it's adding in on top of the momentum of the horse not replacing it, So TBH I think I'm on the money when it comes to combining both sources of ST's.

Take 2 people of equal strength (ST 12) and relevant training. One is riding a courser, with ST 21. The other is riding a T-72, with ST 200. If both are moving at the same speed, does it really make sense that the guy on the tank should do 5-10x (depending on how much contribution the mount makes in your calculations) as much damage?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So yes different factors will have an effect than and ranges in them will be important? And you point assumes that horses will be travelling at the same speed as precondition, of their ST not mattering but why would this be true?

It's a semi-choreographed joust. Of course the horses will be traveling at the same speed - the impact is supposed to be at the center of the field, after all.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

None of this is telling my why we should be removing the horse's ST from the equation, just that the choice of horse matters, which would appear to be making the opposite point?

We mostly remove the horse's ST because the horse's contribution is as a) a source of the speed and b) a bracing point for the rider to use to increase his own effective ST. Horse and rider don't magically fuse into one entity - there is a limit to how well the rider can brace himself, and this limit is due to the rider, not the horse (unless we have a case where the rider is nearly as strong as his horse, of course; with my courser example from above, TST 14 is high enough that the horse's strength starts to be a limiter, if we go with 1.5x rider ST as the cap).

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'm sorry if you want me to remove the largest most powerful single part of couched lance system, you going to have to come with something that directly addresses that rather than relying the fact that all horses in a joust will be roughly the same.

The article directly addresses that. I understand you don't believe it, but I think it's probably the best we've got.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Especially as Jousting does not included all instances of charging with couched lances in combat.

Jousting is the most controlled case of couched lances, where the rider has the most advantages toward bracing himself to maximize the rider-horse interface. All other instances are going to be worse, not better.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Hang just because he's participated in doing something in way that we have very little contemporary evidence actually happened he's an expert. TBH I'd say the reverse.

You said a saddle was necessary for a couched lance charge, else the rider would go flying. The fact the author has done a couched lance charge without a saddle means this isn't true. A saddle is very important, and no knight's going to want to ride without one, but it isn't strictly necessary.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

This is the problem with stuff like this, it tends to be written by the enthusiastic not the scientific. Accordingly assertions tend to be bold, and evidence rather thin, and mainly base on anecdote that doesn't carry much weight.

What evidence do we have that contradicts his findings? It makes sense from the perspective of physics (the rider is the one holding the lance and bracing himself against the horse, after all), and I don't think there have really been any serious scientific studies on the topic. We use what we've got, and that's this article.
Oh, and Dan Howard's the one who linked to it, and as he's done far more research than I on such things (and from what I can tell tends to be rather on the money) I typically defer to him.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Is that a couched lance charge?

Again, this is the best evidence we have. It's a charge with lances/spears, from an era when couched lance charges were known of. Certainly the attackers may have screwed up and just done basic stabs, but I see no good reason to assume this.


Do keep in mind that in a case like this, what you're going to be looking for is circumstantial evidence - you're unlikely to have a "smoking gun." For charges, we have a personal account of how the rider's strength is the most important factor, backed up (in part) by physics. Determining from this that the rider's ST is what should be used doesn't seem too bad of a leap. For surviving charges, we've got some stories of how guys did just that, from eras when mail was prevalent. We also know that mail was used for protection in jousting tournaments when war lances were used in such. Determining from this that mail is capable of protecting from a lance charge doesn't seem like too bad of a leap.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

They were all couched lance attacks. Couched lance attacks were in use since at least the 1st century.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_Plate_2_.jpg

I'm not saying they didn't exist just were these examples of them, tell me how do 12 mounted chaps charge one chap at the same time?

Originally Posted by DanHoward

A less unambiguous example was when Usamah describes his cousin named Khitam who was unhorsed with lance charge. Once on the ground the Franks "reversed their lances and began to dig into him with them. But Khitam was wearing a coat of mail the links of which were so strong that their lances could have no effect on it."

If the lances weren't couched they wouldn't have had to reverse them to attack him on the ground.

Not really, it just means they changed their hold, that could have been from anything to anything, it demonstrates nothing about how they were used up until that point. Even if we assume they swapped from an under arm hold to an over arm hold, that still doesn't proved the spears were fully couched (in terms of what we're discussing here) before that.

But most importantly the very point about the strength of the mail is not talking about it withstanding a couched lance, but while being attacked by what sounds like general jabbing attacks.

The thing is that people writing this stuff are not writing with a view to settling dates re the effectiveness of mail against couched lances, so its always going to be tough to use this stuff as empirical evidence.

And you also have the eternal issue that it suite possible that he wrote this down with the apparent purpose of pointing this out, it was a note worthy thing to point out because it was unusual.

I.e famous anecdotes regarding how many lance blows your mail took might be more like famous fishing stories of giant salmon being pulled out of lakes. In that they are exceptional and worth repeating, than common place and thus not. Basically you write home about rolling a '1' or a '6' not a '3.5'.

This is my point, something might be possible, but that doesn't mean very much in a discussion of what's likely.

However that is of course a subjective point, but then that's a problem with historical accounts, subjectivity.

basically if some one writes down "my mail survived a lance blow" it's pretty good supporting evidence for the assertion:

"mail could withstand a lance blow"

but not:

"mail could reliably withstand couched lance charges"

[DanHoward]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But most importantly the very point about the strength of the mail is not talking about it withstanding a couched lance, but while being attacked by what sounds like general jabbing attacks.

Now you are getting ridiculous. The word translates as "reversed" not "changed grip". And he was unhorsed because his armour stopped the initial lance thrust from going through him.

[DanHoward]

I've already cited the data from Williams. Even the light mail that he tested needed over 200J for a lance head to penetrate. What sort of energy can be delivered by a couched lance?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Take 2 people of equal strength (ST 12) and relevant training. One is riding a courser, with ST 21. The other is riding a T-72, with ST 200. If both are moving at the same speed, does it really make sense that the guy on the tank should do 5-10x (depending on how much contribution the mount makes in your calculations) as much damage?

when they attack in way that involves their momentum, is that a trick question?

Originally Posted by Varyon

It's a semi-choreographed joust. Of course the horses will be traveling at the same speed - the impact is supposed to be at the center of the field, after all.

So not relevant to combat situations and hence the discussion at hand then? And I'm not sure it was that choreographed, do you really imagine one would be told to slow up to allow the slower to catch up the ground?

Originally Posted by Varyon

We mostly remove the horse's ST because the horse's contribution is as a) a source of the speed and b) a bracing point for the rider to use to increase his own effective ST. Horse and rider don't magically fuse into one entity - there is a limit to how well the rider can brace himself, and this limit is due to the rider, not the horse (unless we have a case where the rider is nearly as strong as his horse, of course; with my courser example from above, TST 14 is high enough that the horse's strength starts to be a limiter, if we go with 1.5x rider ST as the cap).

So I'd suggest you reread my post where I discussed this as complex system with anthony. Yes there will limiting factors, but some with be relative and some will be constant or even total, and some will be semi constant. Your right it gets complicated, but that tens to mean accounting for factors rather than dropping them.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The article directly addresses that. I understand you don't believe it, but I think it's probably the best we've got.

Only best we've got is not proof. This is the problem with this kind of specialised stuff, he doesn't get a let when it comes to proving his assertions just because he's the only one to write about the question.
Burden of proof doesn't change.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Jousting is the most controlled case of couched lances, where the rider has the most advantages toward bracing himself to maximize the rider-horse interface. All other instances are going to be worse, not better.

It's also the one were you most designed to survive it, it takes two to joust. But anyway how is that relevant to my point about variables that might be more tightly controlled in a joust such as horse ST, speed etc, are not in the field.

basically when looking are the reality of getting into a fist fight in a bar you tend not to look a video of the super heavyweight title match for what to draw your conclusions from.

Originally Posted by Varyon

You said a saddle was necessary for a couched lance charge, else the rider would go flying. The fact the author has done a couched lance charge without a saddle means this isn't true. A saddle is very important, and no knight's going to want to ride without one, but it isn't strictly necessary.

I said it was limiting factor in that is weak point in the transmission of force n the system, when it come to real life combat "not very important" is going to weight rather more heavily than "not strictly necessary" so not sure the relevancy of what your saying here?

Originally Posted by Varyon

What evidence do we have that contradicts his findings?

What finding's he's 'found' nothing, he's asserted something based on personal anecdote, that is not 'findings'.

Originally Posted by Varyon

It makes sense from the perspective of physics (the rider is the one holding the lance and bracing himself against the horse, after all),

Really? He's bracing himself against he horse in order to transmit some of the energy from the horse to him, do you think he's braced the horse to a standstill.

Not sure it does make sense in physics.

Originally Posted by Varyon

and I don't think there have really been any serious scientific studies on the topic.

No but you an find stuff on motion, energy, etc,

Originally Posted by Varyon

We use what we've got, and that's this article.

we use what we've got but we always keep an eye on the strength of what we have, and its suitability for supporting our assertions. And if it doesn't our assertions are not proved.

Basically if you don't have compelling evidence you don't decide on non compelling evidence, you get more evidence or drop the assertion.

Originally Posted by Varyon

Do keep in mind that in a case like this, what you're going to be looking for is circumstantial evidence - you're unlikely to have a "smoking gun." For charges, we have a personal account of how the rider's strength is the most important factor, backed up (in part) by physics.

Where was it backed up by physics?

Originally Posted by Varyon

Determining from this that the rider's ST is what should be used doesn't seem too bad of a leap. For surviving charges, we've got some stories of how guys did just that, from eras when mail was prevalent. We also know that mail was used for protection in jousting tournaments when war lances were used in such. Determining from this that mail is capable of protecting from a lance charge doesn't seem like too bad of a leap.

Only your using circumstantial evidence to remove a big powerful animal that physic's says plays part.

And when they were using war lance in jousts that weren't actually trying to kill each other.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

Now you are getting ridiculous. The word translates as "reversed" not "changed grip".

Yes clearly no possible crossover in those terms at all, notice I did include changing grip could mean reversing, it just doesn't mean reversing form couched grip. also the point was the mail protected the latter blows i.e teh non couched ones.

Originally Posted by DanHoward

And he was unhorsed because his armour stopped the initial lance thrust from going through him.

That's not in the quote, he was unhorsed in a lance change doesn't necessarily mean he was unhorsed by a lance blow that only his mail saved him from. Given that the description is of how this chap was saved by his mail form lance thrust, bit odd he didn't mention charging lance that knocked him off?


How about the 12 chaps charging at once, am I being ridiculous about that one?
EDIT: did you post about jousting mail vs. plate, I thought I saw one?

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by DanHoward

I've already cited the data from Williams. Even the light mail that he tested needed over 200J for a lance head to penetrate. What sort of energy can be delivered by a couched lance?

I'm guessing more than that,

J to penetrating power is a tough one anyway, because it doesn't transfer very well between two. The often cited high punching stat in joules aren't strictly speaking wrong, but you still can't punch through plate armour!

However as a very rough estimate a 500kg horse with a 100kg man sitting on it hitting a 100kg man at 20mph puts 20KJ into the collision.

Now obviously that's not all going to convert into a lance tip. because of all the things I've already mentioned plus probably loads I haven't thought of! But even if only 5% of it does (1:20 efficiency ratio) that will be 1000J.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So not relevant to combat situations and hence the discussion at hand then? And I'm not sure it was that choreographed, do you really imagine one would be told to slow up to allow the slower to catch up the ground?

We were discussing the jousting conditions under which the author worked, which are indeed choreographed.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

So I'd suggest you reread my post where I discussed this as complex system with anthony. Yes there will limiting factors, but some with be relative and some will be constant or even total, and some will be semi constant. Your right it gets complicated, but that tens to mean accounting for factors rather than dropping them.

Yes, it's a complex system. Repeating that doesn't suddenly mean your "average their ST's" solution is somehow correct. What I'm doing is accounting for the factors - the knight gets a bonus to his ST from transferring some of the momentum to the horse, up to the ST of the horse itself.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only best we've got is not proof. This is the problem with this kind of specialised stuff, he doesn't get a let when it comes to proving his assertions just because he's the only one to write about the question.
Burden of proof doesn't change.

It is proof, just not definitive. You can choose not to believe it if you like.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

What finding's he's 'found' nothing, he's asserted something based on personal anecdote, that is not 'findings'.

It doesn't have to be in a peer-reviewed journal to be findings. From the article, he's done a decent amount of experimentation to figure out how best to use a couched lance, and found that the strength of the rider is the primary determinant of effectiveness.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Really? He's bracing himself against he horse in order to transmit some of the energy from the horse to him, do you think he's braced the horse to a standstill.

Ummm... what? Look, what we have is a lance traveling at 16 mph or so. That alone isn't going to do much, but behind it is 160+ pounds of angry Englishman. Beneath said Englishman is half a ton or so of horseflesh. In order for the Englishman to put that half ton of horse behind the lance, he's going to have to properly brace himself, which is going to be a function of his own strength (with a nice boost from having a proper saddle). When he climbed onto the horse, the two didn't magically become one being!

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Not sure it does make sense in physics.

How does it not make sense?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Basically if you don't have compelling evidence you don't decide on non compelling evidence, you get more evidence or drop the assertion.

I feel the article is fairly compelling. Can you give counterevidence that is more compelling?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Only your using circumstantial evidence to remove a big powerful animal that physic's says plays part.

And my system has it play a part, in that it basically functions as a "sink" for the impact - but how much can be transferred to the horse is going to depend on how strong the rider is.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

And when they were using war lance in jousts that weren't actually trying to kill each other.

Accidents happen - otherwise they wouldn't bother with any sort of armor, just a shield and lance would suffice. A joust is going to be done at battlefield speeds (possibly faster, as the jousting horses probably aren't going to be armored and on the battlefield you probably don't often have two knights charging each other head-on like this), using battlefield weapons. The difference is just that you're aiming for the other guy's shield, rather than specifically trying to avoid his shield.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

when they attack in way that involves their momentum, is that a trick question?

A human trying to act as a firm transfer point for the momentum of a charging main battle tank would rather obviously be converted to a gory mess.

That is, the guy with the lance couldn't possibly survive fully leveraging that.

Lets do numbers. A T-72 masses 41500 kg. Moving at the Heavy Warhorse's full charge of 14 yards per second, that's got a kinetic energy of 3.4 megajoules. If the lancer was to fully stop that over the length of a 4 meter lance, it would need an average force of 85 tons.

So again, no, the lancer is not really tapping the momentum of that mount. In fact, doing so with the horse would call for around two tons of force, which I think is pretty unlikely even if we don't consider that the lance itself is unlikely to stand up to that.

In reality, even a direct collision doesn't care much about the mass of the much larger colliding body. A human being rammed (but not run over) by a car or by a tank will experience about the same thing despite the tank being more than 10 times as massive. Or to be more extreme, notice you don't tend to explode messily when you collide with the Earth despite the utterly ridiculous momentum involved.

[ErhnamDJ]

I agree that the mass of the horse shouldn't count toward the mass of the blow, and neither should the mass of the man unless he's wearing a lance rest, and even then I don't think his mass is going to count for very much.

A six pound lance traveling at fourteen yards per second hits with 230J.

If you have two men on horseback charging each other, and they meet head-on, then isn't that twice the speed? Isn't that a 919J collision?

If that's the case, then in GURPS terms you're going from six to twelve damage and that explains the difference between combat and jousting armor. Light mail is DR 5 or 6 and jousting mail is DR 10, 11, or 12.