Pirates and Ninjas!

i am not amused with this statement

 

If there were still Vikings around, Gears of War weaponry would be based on real guns.

 

Actually the Lancer isn't a very effective weapon just because of the chainsaw bayonet.

 

I didn't realize they were looking for efficiency when comping up with that

 

Flintlocke weaponry doesn't work at sea, due to the constant mist. The dampens the gunpowder, making it so it can't ignite.

Also.

If you're going to compare old vikings to Somalian pirates, I get to compare Somalian pirates to THIS viking.

 

No you don't because Somalian pirates are real. That isnt.

Also, then how do you explain the Colonial Marines rifles?


Also, quick info on pirate weaponry they had swivel guns, muskets, blunderbuss, musketoon, flintlock pistols, multi-barreled pistols, pocket pistols, and volley guns. The swivel guns alone would pick off the Vikings ships before they could ever set foot on a pirates ship.

 

@ Jshep...

Ahem!

Those pirates are real too. Either stick to the proper time zone or speak about all modern day pirates.

 

I know exactly what weaponry was common in the heyday of pirates, as I have written numerous papers on navel engagements.

The swivel guns alone would not even phase a Viking attack. The attacks you see in movies were NOT how they were in real life. Even Man'o'wars with 42 guns would be ill pressed to hit the attacking ship ONCE before they were boarded, due to the lack of sights on their heavy cannons and the fact that gunpowder has to be literally bone dry to ignite with enough force to propel a cannon ball.

But since you're so keen on swivel guns though, lets humour you.

First off, you can't sight the like you can a rifle, due to the fact that the recoil would quite literally break your face. So, you point it in the general direction of the boat and fire. It's a big ship, so you should be good, right?

Wrong.

They were not ship-sinking weapons, due to their small caliber and short range. They'd prolly splinter the hull pretty good, or at point blank, puncture the hull, but it's be a fist sized hole at the most. Factor in the fact that Viking ships were shallow keeled, which basically means there's no way to breach beneath the waterline.

So, best case scenerio for them. The Vikings board your vessel. This way, you can hit a Viking warrior point blank. Congratulations, you just killed a Viking and managed to piss off the other 23-34 warriors with him. Good luck reloading before your head parts company with your neck, courtesy of a battle axe.


The number one, and probably only effective, defense against a Viking assault would be a grapeshot attack, which is essentially a shotgun cannon. However, those are ONLY effective against soft targets, and while they would hurt a Viking pretty bad, the warrior would at worst be incapacitated, but, if they had prepared for battle, would most likely just shrug it off due to the shrooms they chewed before battle. Best case scenario for the Viking is if he had a shield. Wouldn't even penetrate really.

Large bore weapons, such as a standard galleon cannon would be nearly useless in battle, due to a longboat's size and maneuverability. In essence, you'd be trying to shoot a fly with a slingshot. Small bore weapons could be used to greater effect, if you manage to keep your shot dry.

However, if the pirates were against berserkergang, any defense from the pirate side would be nearly useless.

A quote from an Icelandic historian, Snorri Sturluson.
"His (Odin's) men rushed forward without armour, were as mad as dogs or wolves, bit their shields, and were as strong as bears or wild bulls, and killed people at a blow, but neither fire nor iron told upon themselves."

The bit in particular you should pay attention to. "killed people at a blow, but neither fire nor iron told upon themselves." You could stab them. You could burn them. But even after that, they'd kill you in a blow.

Pirates would piss their dungarees.

 

I highly doubt they could take a bullet and keep going, or several for that matter. The pistols fired at close range could cause serious damage if it hit a soft area on their bodies. Even if they had armor at close range it would indent the armor making it create an open wound. Also they would have to get ON the boat first before they did anything. In the process they would be climbing up while facing a hail of lead and dozens of pirates armed with all sorts of weapons. Along with the fact that a lot of the average pirates were former navy crewmen of various countries they would be trained to fight in combat. Your shrooms may make them dull to pain, but facing that much firepower while climbing up and into a ship will be difficult.

Also, they would be picked off before they could even reach the boat. The grapeshots might night sink the boats the vikings road in on, but they would definitely tear anyone in the way of the incoming shrapnel to shreds. The pirates also used a wide assortment of custom made bombs and grenades. These are more then just mere explosions as the hundreds of pieces of shrapnel would rip through just about anything. Also, your forgetting the ships pirates used could hold a larger force then those of vikings.

Also, most of the Vikings would not have been armored. Mail was something only the wealthier warriors would have had. And even the Vikings who had it would find it inadequate protection against firearms. Given the height disadvantage, and the vulnerability of the Norsemen to a good volley of musket fire, I doubt they'd ever get aboard.

There is a reason why armies abandoned the use of swords and shields.

 

wait, some damage and a dent count as a reason to stop fighting?

you dont stop fighting till you die, so some damage, is not a reason to retreat

 

I'm not sure you're understanding here. Berserker's aren't dulled to pain, they're in a euphoric state where pain does not exist. As I stated earlier, they could literally lose a limb and not be phased. As far as bullets go, you can put up to five bullets in a charging gorilla, up to seven into a charging lion, near infinite into an enraged bear, before they realize they're dead. Why? Rage and adrenaline. Berserkergang were in much the same state. Many of my sources present factoids, such as quotes: "no weapon could bite them" or "iron could not bite into him." "his concept of immunity may have evolved from the berserker's rage, during which the berserk might receive wounds, but due to his state of frenzy take no note of them until the madness passed from him. A warrior who continued fighting while bearing mortal wounds would surely have been a terrifying opponent."

Being shot with a small pellet of metal the size of my last pinky joint, while painful, does not compare to being ran through with a sword, for multiple reasons. The first reason being that gunshot wounds simply induce less trauma than a stabbing. The wound is small and localized, and far less prone to septic shot, as the bullet is mostly sterile. A stab or slash wound on the other hand literally opens you up, either damaging several vital organs, or literally opening you up. Berserkers could take that and keep on coming.

Another, you are relying far to much on firearms, which I thought I had neatly explained to you. Small arms did not work at sea. Ever. At all.

Also. "Also they would have to get ON the boat first before they did anything. In the process they would be climbing up while facing a hail of lead and dozens of pirates armed with all sorts of weapons." No no no, and no. First off, Vikings often employed bows, with both standard and flaming arrows. Towards the end of their reign of power, they used crossbows as well. There would be no 'hail of lead.' That concept is laughable. There would be five maybe six working shots. Far less damaging than the hail of arrows they were used to.

Grapeshot would not even come close to sinking anything. Not even a row boat. It would be like shooting a truck with a low powered shotgun. It's not gonna do much of anything.

Chain was rare, yes, but lamellar and hardened leather was not. Both would protect from anti-boarding practices (generally clubs) and both chain and lamellar would easily stop a shot at medium to long range.

Shrapnel is a non-issue do the the fact that many Vikings essentially wore a fat suit made of leather and fur. I mean, they lived in the cold, godless north, they're gonna have hella clothing.

Height disadvantage, another non-issue. We're talking about a race that was feared for centuries, a bogeyman if you will. A town they attacked is a town they defeated, walled or not.

Again, and I cannot stress this enough since you apparently don't understand, you will never have a full volley of any kind of weapons fire at sea. The reason we can today is because the gunpowder is water-sealed in the cartridge. Back then, do you know what they used? The most advanced form of munitions was a little paper bag (similar to a tea bad) with gunpower and a small metal pellet. This would be worthless at sea, because if the bad were to get the very slightest damp, it would be utterly useless.

The majority of navel engagements in that era would be similar to the following. At extreme range, you'd get two max cannonfire volleys off. Lets say you have eight guns. Of those sixteen shots, if you were lucky, if the wind didn't change, if you calculated the rotation of the earth, 2 or three of the shots might hit. Then the ships smash into each other. If you were raiding the ship, you'd break the mast, if you were lucky. There would be 5-7 gunshots, and the rest of the battle would be fought hand to hand. Richer forces would use cutlesses and sabers, whereas poorer ones would fight with clubs, and possibly dirks. Neither force would be armored in the least. Caltrops would often be scattered about against pirates, as they almost never wore seaboots.

As far as I can tell, the only way a pirate could ever win a fight against Vikings is sheer, godly luck.

 

Five cheers for Phoe, the god of all knowledge.

Also, pirates in the ye old didn't have good guns. And as someone linked there are modern day 'vikings', too. about as legitimate as modern day 'pirates'. I call them terrorists, tbh, because that's what they do. they steal ships and hold people ransom for money, much like the terrorists we've seen on land. Only these guys have taken their antics and terror tactics. I consider pirates the true view of a priate. the scourges and ragtag cutthroats of the seas that ran through other ships, and wandered the seas for treasure and such.

Generally, i say look at the statistics. Vikings pillaged towns and tore them apart, they sieged castles on occasion as well, and completely tore down cities and raped and killed the women, killed the men, burned the town, stole all valuable goods. They were just a ruthless bunch toughing it out in the cold, while pirates were random people who'd decided to take up knives and swords and kill for gold and glory. not to mention many pirates were caught and hanged while vikings fought to the death. Getting captured wans't somethign that really happened to them. Pirates, also, weren't as hardened in the ways of combat like vikings were.

 

actually terrorist do it for the sake of spreading terror amongst their enemies, pirates do it for the lewt loot

 

You take that back!

But seriously, and I wouldn't actually be certain whether this is for or against the Vikings it's so severe, but I remember reading at least one incident, where, during a naval battle, the berserkergang worked themselves up into so greater rage that they physically ran off the side of the boat in an attempt to get to their enemies.

I think it should also be mentioned that the Vikings, though I believe they had a separate name when not raiding, actually had their own empire, which even included England which they captured in 1066, if memory serves. The best pirates have ever achieved is disrupted trade, maybe a small town at most.

 

They didn't use just teabags. They also had leather sacks filled with gunpowder which kept the powder dry until they uncapped it and pored it into their weapons. Also, the mere impact of a bullet is ten times more traumatic then any sword. The pressure behind it is enough to literally push someone back. The size of the bullet doesn't matter as it would still be traveling at a speed so fast you can't even see it. It would be the equivalent of someone launching a brick at you through a very powerful slingshot. Add to the fact that the bullets were made from lead, and that they were usually very hot when they hit the target and your not talking about a little bit of pain. Let me remind you that many soldiers had to have their arms severed because of the damage caused by the bullet or they would die.

Also, the pirates often kept their weapons closed up by a wooden plug known as a 'tamp-ion' and the touch whole covered with a lash. So they would in fact have their firearms available to them. Also, their cannons would have been able to shoot a canister shot and several other different types of munitions to end most of the vikings lives before they even got close to the pirate ship its self. Then of course if and when they got close enough to begin climbing up the side of the boat they would have to worry about the pirates tossing down several explosives capable of killing nearly any viking on board. Such as a stinkpot or hand grenade, and then upon getting to the ship they would STILL have to fight past the guns shooting at them, and once they got to the railing would have to get past dozens of pirates armed with cutlasses and other similar weaponry cutting them down as they reached the top.

 

Obviously, you've never been hiking. Water soaks through leather only a little slower than cloth. And no, getting shot is FAR less traumatic than stab wounds. In gang fights, the victims who are stabbed or slashed are far more likely to die, simply because shock sets in that much faster. A gunshot is not only a much smaller wound, it's actually far less painful. I actually have experience in both, shot (not so much shot but hit with a chunk of stone propelled by an explosion - same concept), and stabbed. I was coherent after getting hit with the stone, but shock nearly knocked me out in the stabbing ('twas in my thigh - I fell on a blade). It was also far more painful and bloody. Also, the last statement of your first paragraph simply shows how limited your knowledge is. I assume you're talking soldiers in wars like the US Civil War, and the World Wars? They were not amputed due to pain (where did you get that idea?). They were amputated due to fact that cleanliness was not a prime virtue in wartime environments and gangrene (basically, a really bad necrosis causing infection) would have set in by the time they reached a MASH. The limbs were amputated to prevent the gangrene from spreading to a vital body part, eg the heart, stomach, liver, etc.

I pretty much give up on the gun bit, because it's completely obvious that you're ignoring facts and talking completely out of your ass.

 

Leather's hardly waterproof, and I'd imagine that it's more the humidity that ruins it than actual liquid water. And what with the poring it before firing, yeah, they wouldn't get many shots off.

As for pushing someone back, that's not the case, that's just a Hollywood concoction. The mass of a bullet is far too small to actually push someone back, especially seeing as they're designed to have a minimal amount of resistance.

With the amputations, that would have happened after the battle. It's not as though they were shot and their arms were immediately amputated. Also, you've got to remember that blows from swords and axes often do result in immediate amputation, which is more that you'd get from a pistol.

And no, pirates wouldn't've been able to end most of the Vikings' lives before they got on deck. In fact, the only time they'd really get a chance would be when they're on deck, because of the inaccuracy of the guns. As Fenix described, they're not like modern day bullets where the bullet's fitted to the chamber, with an even case of gunpowder behind it. And if they were lead, they'd have to be notably smaller than the barrel, as lead in particular is very prone to expanding due to heat. That distorts all the pressures even more, making it less accurate when being fired.

 

Jesus.

Someone here does NOT want to give up on this argument.


on an internet forum.



That he already lost.

 

Hell, even the one who's already won won't give up.

Cause I like showing off.

 

Cause its a fun arguement

No one has even stopped to consider that vikings were pirates. In anycase anyone watch that show where they did a pirate vs a knight? The winner of that could probably be the same winner in a viking vs a pirate as the weapon differences are similar. Also, how would a viking ship even catch up with a Pirate vessel capable of going into deep sea?