Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-23-2018, 11:21 AM   #21
The Colonel
 
The Colonel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
How much banging can a modern rifle take? Can they be used as mauls like they do in movies? I mean theoretically, not just "it's not a good idea." Of course by now they use fireaxes and tactical tomahawks for doorbusting I would imagine.
Some of them very little - the L85A1 would fly to pieces if you looked at it the wrong way - whilst others such as the descendants of the AK-47 have a reputation for toughness.
Of course you still have the problem of breaking off various useful but fiddly bits such as cocking handles, various catches and, of course, the sights so that even if it does fire once misused like that, it will probably not be anything like as effective.
The Colonel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2018, 04:16 PM   #22
Drone 5
 
Drone 5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

OK even though my original post was about Rifle Butt attacks and Pistol Whipping attacks - [per High Tech, I do appreciate all only of the other comments made.
The more I thought and read about it, I now agree that Rifle Butt attacks are Thrusting attacks.
Pistol Whipping still seems like it should be a Swing attack though.
Either way, thanks for all of the great comments and input.
__________________
The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. - Gary Gygax
Drone 5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2018, 06:06 PM   #23
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post



But the idea that spear (and later bayonet) formations never stood and fought each other is speculation about a very poorly understood aspect of warfare at best and an unsupported myth at worst. the 1700's and 1800's were, contrary to popular belief, a great time of military innovation. Militaries played around with technology and tactics, and if they'd found a better weapon than the bayonet, you'd bet that they'd use it. A weapon does not dominate the battlefield for 200 years because it is ineffective.
Bayonets stayed around because they were small and there was never any particular reason to get rid of them especially as it is even more useful to simply convert them into field knives that happen to be able to mate with a bayonet mount as a secondary feature that is miniscule rather then just small.

They also kept away horsemen reliably which was their main role. But to say they were dominate when they only generated a miniscule account of casualties by the witness of most primary sources is dubious. It is notable that most of those who romanticized the bayonet were generals who were satisfied with what the bayonet did do, which was destroy regiments psychologically, not soldiers who actually had to use it as a weapon or medics who identified wounds.

As an actual weapon in a fight, a sword and targe would have been far more reliable then a bayoneted musket as a hand to hand weapon. It was the fact that the bayonet gave a musketeer confidence to stand a charge, and phased out the pike that made it important.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison

Last edited by jason taylor; 10-23-2018 at 06:09 PM.
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2018, 06:13 PM   #24
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drone 5 View Post
OK even though my original post was about Rifle Butt attacks and Pistol Whipping attacks - [per High Tech, I do appreciate all only of the other comments made.
The more I thought and read about it, I now agree that Rifle Butt attacks are Thrusting attacks.
Pistol Whipping still seems like it should be a Swing attack though.
Either way, thanks for all of the great comments and input.
I would think pistol whipping would count as a kind of knuckleduster or small club. Less like a brass knuckles and more like a nightstick or kubaton.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 03:33 AM   #25
Tomsdad
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
Bayonets stayed around because they were small and there was never any particular reason to get rid of them especially as it is even more useful to simply convert them into field knives that happen to be able to mate with a bayonet mount as a secondary feature that is miniscule rather then just small.

They also kept away horsemen reliably which was their main role. But to say they were dominate when they only generated a miniscule account of casualties by the witness of most primary sources is dubious. It is notable that most of those who romanticized the bayonet were generals who were satisfied with what the bayonet did do, which was destroy regiments psychologically, not soldiers who actually had to use it as a weapon or medics who identified wounds.
A C18th - Early C20th Musket/rifle with bayonet is basically a 5-7ft spear*. This is a great weapon to fight in tight formation in, and if you are in close combat with your enemy you want to be close formation for defense and mutual support. It is very hard to stay in close formation if you are having to swing a rifle about, plus you lose reach advantage etc.

As you say it's also reasonable at dealing with cavalry.

The point about proportion of casualties is kind of moot. Yes obviously as fire power improved the proportion of casualties inflicted by it increased (and thus casualties from other sources decrease). But once you get into close combat all the C18th- early C20th rifle length firepower in the world won't be much help. And yes again increased firepower means the chances of getting into close combat reduce, but C18th & C19th did have decisive action which involves men sticking sharp implements into each other and convincing theri target that it was better to "live another day".

Later it becomes less likely of course. In WW1 as pointed out the bayonet/rifle combo was not a great weapon because no one's lining up and fighting in a tight formation and the situation where you are likely to get into hand to hand range are not suitable for a 6ft spear anway (as pointed out trench raiding or mountain fighting HtH was potentially at very quarters where a 6ft spear would be liability). Honourable mention to the eastern front that was more open and you more likely to find a HtH situation were nice long spear was of use, more cavalry about as well! After WW1 & WW2 bayonets do become more the utility knife with bayonet attachment as you describe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jason taylor View Post
As an actual weapon in a fight, a sword and targe would have been far more reliable then a bayoneted musket as a hand to hand weapon. It was the fact that the bayonet gave a musketeer confidence to stand a charge, and phased out the pike that made it important.

And yet when the highland change did manage to get into contact, the bayonet line beat it. Because as above a close order formation of spears is bad news to charge with sword and shield especially when you have no armour.

Now you can argue that it was the preceding volleys that shattered the charge leaving the bayonet to mop up the few that got in, but actually they did get into contact in numbers and once in contact that's where the highlanders wanted to be and where they should shine. But they didn't. Or well they didn't after English bayonet drill was improved and a few tweaks were put in place like stabbing diagonally to cover the man to your right in order to tighten the formation**, and stab to the un-shielded sword side of your target.


*Even in WW1 the french Lebel M1886 is 51" by itself, the epee bayonet was 27" in total (with a 20" blade) it was no 'field knife', so with a fixed bayonet you are looking at about 6ft all in.


**similar idea to the shield tactics in some shield walls protecting the man on your left as well as yourself so everyone's natural inclination to huddle up to maximise their individual protection, tightens the overall formation
__________________
Grand High* Poobah of the Cult of Stat Normalisation.
*not too high of course

Last edited by Tomsdad; 10-24-2018 at 09:30 AM.
Tomsdad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 09:00 AM   #26
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby View Post
Except if you use a Glove Pistol (HT 199) then you are suppoed to be hitting them with the leaded and ready to fire weapon. :)

But indeed for all normal weapons, if the weapon is usable and ready to fire, firing it is the way to go..
If you lacked a silencer, that might alert guards, if you're still aiming to remain stealthy. Or if you only intended the gun for a certain target (maybe limited shots, or only 1 guy deserves to die) and wanted non-lethal means vs his goons...

Quickly putting the safety on the gun prior to hammerfisting w/ handle as a fist load is still probably a good idea. Even if you didn't accidentally shoot anyone, the discharge is noisy/bright and you waste a shot. I can't remember where to find rules for safetying / unsafetying guns, if that's part of using "ready" to go from merely grabbing to holding properly, or unholstering, and if there's a way to do it without costing a maneuver like with Quick-Draw.

Even if you have the safety on your weapon though, if you are swinging it around by the barrel, if an agile enemy was able to grab the handle you're swinging at him and get a proper grip on the weapon, they could probably un-safety the weapon and discharge it at you, since the safety is on the handle-end not the barrel-end.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 09:57 AM   #27
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomsdad View Post
A C18th - Early C20th Musket/rifle with bayonet is basically a 5-7ft spear*. This is a great weapon to fight in tight formation in, and if you are in close combat with your enemy you want to be close formation for defense and mutual support. It is very hard to stay in close formation if you are having to swing a rifle about, plus you lose reach advantage etc.

As you say it's also reasonable at dealing with cavalry.

The point about proportion of casualties is kind of moot. Yes obviously as fire power improved the proportion of casualties inflicted by it increased (and thus casualties from other sources decrease). But once you get into close combat all the C18th- early C20th rifle length firepower in the world won't be much help. And yes again increased firepower means the chances of getting into close combat reduce, but C18th & C19th did have decisive action which involves men sticking sharp implements into each other and convincing theri target that it was better to "live another day".

Later it becomes less likely of course. In WW1 as pointed out the bayonet/rifle combo was not a great weapon because no one's lining up and fighting in a tight formation and the situation where you are likely to get into hand to hand range are not suitable for a 6ft spear anway (as pointed out trench raiding or mountain fighting HtH was potentially at very quarters where a 6ft spear would be liability). Honourable mention to the eastern front that was more open and you more likely to find a HtH situation were nice long spear was of use, more cavalry about as well! After WW1 & WW2 bayonets do become more the utility knife with bayonet attachment as you describe.






And yet while the highland change did managed to get into contact, the bayonet line beat it. Because as above a close order formation of spears is bad news to charge with sword and shield especially when you have no armour.

Now you can argue that it was the initial volleys that shattered the charge leaving the bayonet to mop up the few that got in but actually they didn't get into contact in numbers and once in contact that's where the highlanders wanted to be and where they should shine. But they didn't. Or well they didn't after bayonet drill was improved and a few tweaks were out in place like stabbing to cover the man to your right in order to tighten the formation**, and stab to the un-shielded sword side of your target.


*Even in WW1 the french Lebel M1886 is 51" by itself, the epee bayonet was 27" in total (with a 20" blade) it was no 'field knife', so with a fixed bayonet you are looking at about 6ft all in.


**similar idea to the shield tactics in some shield walls protecting the man on your left as well as yourself so everyone's natural inclination to huddle up to maximise their individual protection, tightens the overall formation
The point about proportion of casualties is not moot as you have just agreed in the first paragraph that bayonets were primarily psychological devices. In a sense all weapons are in ground warfare. But if you wish to test their utility in an actual fight rather then the threat of one then their performance in fighting at the range for which they were nominally made becomes relevant.

Being a great weapon to fight in formation with is irrelevant if one never has shields, armor, or other stuff necessary to fight in formation and the opponents weapon is just as long. And when they were very seldom used in formation except for defensive purposes in any event in which case charging it was just as much bad news with a six foot spear that is not a reliable parrying device as a targe which is. There is few records of an offensive bayonet advance in formation making contact with an enemy unit that had not been disrupted. And had a charge with sword and targe, been made in formation and had it not been disrupted by musketry before coming in contact, it would have over come the methods described which after all were defensive methods meant specifically to counter the Highland Charge and only successful enough to level the playing field at that. And not noted as appearing anywhere else for any other purpose. The reason bayonets worked in this fashion is not that they were somehow to be compared with traditional hand weapons as hand weapons. It was because as with all formation fighting, everyone who comes in contact is outnumbered at the point of contact. It was fire that was the decisive factor, and discipline, not bayonets.

In the Continent formations seldom even came close enough to make a bayonet charge thinkable. Few had the discipline to advance without stopping to return fire, and once they did that momentum was lost. Meaning the tendency among most armies was for the battle to devolve into firefights at long enough range that they would have caused more casualties over all but not enough at once to shock a unit into fleeing. Bayonets were not decisive because they were not used and the reason they were not used, was that no one could get anyone close enough.

Outside Western-Central Europe and North America (areas which are often neglected in military studies) heroic traditions still often prevailed and there still often were aristocratic warriors who relied chiefly on hand weapons. These tended to prefer traditional purpose built hand weapons, and either leave muskets to an infantry that amounted to little more then an "audience" or use them in suboptimal ways (basically as a composite bow, for which a composite bow would of course have been better). Cavalry pretty much dominated there too because of distances involved. In a sense the bayonet proved decisive as European, and European trained infantry tended to push aside native infantry raised by rulers who had neglected their training, and cavalry who could not get their horses to go near bayonet armed musketeers any more then European cavalry could.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 10:25 AM   #28
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Ok, so I went looking for battles in the 1700's decided by the bayonet rather than the shot, and I remembered the great northern war featuring a lot of Swedish victories through melee. So I looked it up, and came across evidence that the bayonet was indeed primarily defensive: the Caroleans, the Swedish troops noted for charging to melee range, retained pikes for decades after their contemporaries stopped using them, and outfitted most of their musketeers with swords. Only a few men in each company used bayonets.

So it appears that at least one army that favored melee vs. muskets used swords and spears rather than bayonets. I'm surprised.

I still would rather have a bayonet than an entrenching tool for a fight in a field.
__________________
Be helpful, not pedantic

Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Check out the PbP forum! If you don't see a game you'd like, ask me about making one!
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 10:37 AM   #29
johndallman
Night Watchman
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cambridge, UK
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
So it appears that at least one army that favored melee vs. muskets used swords and spears rather than bayonets. I'm surprised.
A musket plus bayonet isn't a good spear. It's too heavy, too short and rather clumsy. However, if you want all your infantry to be trained the same, it's the best compromise.

If you're willing to have several types of infantry with different equipment in each unit, and pay the associated costs, then that would appear to work better. There's a parallel to the way that modern-day infantry in rich countries sometimes have a different weapon for each member of a fireteam.
johndallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 10:59 AM   #30
jason taylor
 
jason taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon
Default Re: Rifle Butt and Pistol Whipping attacks

Quote:
Originally Posted by johndallman View Post
A musket plus bayonet isn't a good spear. It's too heavy, too short and rather clumsy. However, if you want all your infantry to be trained the same, it's the best compromise.

If you're willing to have several types of infantry with different equipment in each unit, and pay the associated costs, then that would appear to work better. There's a parallel to the way that modern-day infantry in rich countries sometimes have a different weapon for each member of a fireteam.
Bayonets are a nice thing to have if you are going to have a musket. Just like a wood saw is a nice thing to have with a whittling knife even though the piddling little saws that even the best pocketknives can put in are not something to cut a trunk with.
__________________
"The navy could probably win a war without coffee but would prefer not to try"-Samuel Eliot Morrison
jason taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
on target, pistol whip, pyramid, rifle butt

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.