Effectiveness of riot shields for medieval type fighting

[Umbran]

granted, at 11' in the air, that meant the destined target was 10-11' away, so being wide open was less of a risk at that range, than say much closer.

The target's actually probably notably closer than that. That height is *including the person* - so 4-5 feet of person, and then 5 to 6 feet of weapon - but you aren't pivoting the weapon and your body around your feet. So the target is probably no more than 6 feet away. That means if he takes *one* step forward, he's inside your reach.

That said, it works fine, *if* there's a sword-and-board guy between you and the target. Otherwise, having the weapon at full-extension like that leaves you vulnerable, as at full extension you don't have the lever-arm to change the direction of that head quickly. And, if he gets inside, you can block with the haft (after drawing it back in from that extension, anyway), but you can't *strike* with it, so unless you can gain distance again somehow, you are hosed.

We sparred a friend with boffers, who'd had some SCA big sword fighting training, and the technique was similar. Blade up, ready to do a rapid levering on the pommel. Packed quite a wallop. on the head.

When I fight in the SCA, I'm a polearm guy. When you're one-on-one, the better technique is to have the pommel near your shoulder or head, but the striking head maybe 11 *inches* from the ground, rather than feet - so the weapon is angled downwards - and your hands are shoulder-width or more apart on the weapon. Now, in order to reach you, they have to go around this big stick (you can block with the haft very effectively) and with the wide handgrip, you can change the direction of the weapon "wicked damn fast" as they say in New England. You have really good shots at the thigh, hip, and torso. Having your hands far apart gives you lots of leverage, and that means speed in this context. The drawback is, unlike with a sword-and board, you usually can't block and strike at the same time, as your shield and your weapon are the same object.

Alternatively, you have one hand near the butt of the weapon, somewhat behind you, the other hand up near the head - again, a very wide grip - with the head pointing toward the enemy at waist level. This is for spear-like thrusting. It works better if you have a sword and board partner, or a line of polearms/spears.

Techniques with large swords are different, as the weapon is shorter, and has more striking surface than haft. The gripping length is much shorter, so you have to keep your hands closer together.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hi,

I was looking at images of polycarbonate circular riot shields, for example:

https://www.google.com/search?q=tra...LAhVMXB4KHY0CCLkQsAQIGw#imgrc=kyBR_wlYYJWqEM:

http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/The-PC-circular-riot-shield-shield_1382457391.html

And I was wondering how effective these would be for medieval type fights. They would seem to be decent enough protection against swords and arrows. Are they able to withstand blunt impacts, such as from heavy maces?

The per unit cost from China is about $15.50 per unit, which is amazingly low.

A downside seems to be edge protection: These have unprotected edges, which seems problematic. That would be easy to remedy with a simple metal trim.

Thx!
TomB

Define "Medieval type". And what sort of blunt impacts - boffer swords are a world away from edged maces.

I see them, like Umbran, as buckler equivalents - but they barely even do that job well. They are very useful against flying bottles and other projectiles (better than bucklers), no use at all as viking round shields for duelling, and the strapped nature of the shield means that they are little use for any of the other single person combat offensive uses shields were put to. And you have little mobility to, for example, protect your legs any lower than mid-thigh. Frankly it appears to mostly be for flying bottles and rocks aimed at your head (and to be vastly superior to unarmed and probably pretty useful versus clubs and knives). Of course this covers approximately 99% of riots, with the rest involving shots fired - so that's not a problem.

I'm a bit more impressed by the lightweight roman legionary style rectangular shields - they have an offensive use (shield wall and crush) but this takes a lot of people, and they do at least protect your knees (and if you've ever tried walking with a shield that protects your knees you'll know why the circular ones are normally preferred).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It was just one-on-one sparring, but he was starting more than 10' away. The reason he got hit in the head that first time is he kinda stepped into it- he was trying to cross under my strike (so I'd have to do a backswing next) when it hit. It was not a legal target, but I couldn't do anything about that.

In subsequent charges, he avoided the head shot, but the blows still crashed through his defenses and landed until he started deflecting more and catching less.

When we did multiple-person sparring, I used the weapon more like a spear* so the haft was available for blocking. I was pretty decent with it...and a couple of others, too.









* FWIW, the weapon I had in mind when I made it was an African heavy spear that was 6' long: 3' of handle and 3' of blade, designed to be thrown short distances or used like a slashing/thrusting sword. But NERO weapon design rules prevented me from going with anything longer than a 2' head, and swords couldn't have handles that big. So it became a polearm.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

I was browsing, don't remember exactly what, when I came across a picture of a similar shield to the one that I posted. I was struck by the shiny of it, and got to thinking about the differences between a shield made of modern materials and one which would have been used for the sort of fighting that is (kindof) depicted in D&D: Folks with armor and shields going at it with a variety of historical weapons.

The smallish fighting that I did in college was sword and board. My fights were most often with a friend. He used either just one weapon, or two, and I used just one, and had a shield made out of a rectangular cushion. (He was a lot better at this than me!) We fought just one-on-one, and agility and precision in strikes made a huge difference. For example, a sword strike can leave the forearm exposed to a counterstrike.

As a buckler, the shield that I linked seems OK, but I'm thinking it suffers from being too rigid and not having enough padding. I'm wondering still if that is is very smooth is a plus or a minus: A plus for deflecting blows, a minus because sometimes its nice to trap the opponents weapon. I'm wondering how the material compares with a decent wooden shield in either weight or durability.

I'm well past the ability to do this sort of fighting anymore. It's all in a category of musing on modern materials use in fighting.

Thx!
TomB

 

[Janx]

I have an actual steel buckler. Pretty rigid and small (about a foot diameter).

Your pic example looks more like a proper shield (size-wise).

I imagine the good ones are made of the better plastics, less likely to crack from a baseball bat hit (that has to be a test they do).

Being see-thru might be useful, as you aren't blinding yourself when you raise it up.

I imagine though, its utility is measured by today's modern threats, bats, pipes, thrown beer bottles.

They might make a version that blocks bullets using Lexan or something. Call of Duty has a riot shield that does a good job of that, I imagine they modeled it after something maybe real. Or not.

Against enemies who don't really know how to fight (most people nowadays), they probably suffice.

I do recall seeing articles about the Occupy riot stuff, where protesters improvised armor out of plastic milk jugs, etc, to help reduce damage. We all might joke about the futility of wearing a milk jug on your head, but would you rather have one when a beer bottle is flying at you?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Compared to the first one posted, it bet a lot of us would feel more comfy behind one of these if facing someone armed with a modern melee weapon, and still OK facing medieval weapons.
http://m.galls.com/paulson-heavy-bs-9-riot-shield

However, what you'd REALLY want is one of these:
http://www.chiefsupply.com/protech-...el-iiia-24-x-36-w-4-x-16-view-port-black.html

 

[Ryujin]

Compared to the first one posted, it bet a lot of us would feel more comfy behind one of these if facing someone armed with a modern melee weapon, and still OK facing medieval weapons.
http://m.galls.com/paulson-heavy-bs-9-riot-shield

However, what you'd REALLY want is one of these:
http://www.chiefsupply.com/protech-...el-iiia-24-x-36-w-4-x-16-view-port-black.html

And at 21 Lbs that second one is "hold the line" stuff, not "advance and subdue" gear. The first is what Toronto Police used during the G20.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It's a question of the right tool for the job. For the most part, police are going to value light weight shields because of the the mobility & weapons of their usual opponents.

Knowing you're facing a serious weapon, though? You're going to want something sturdier. (I haven't bothered to check whether there are riot shields occupying the middle ground between the heavy ones and the light polycarbonates.

 

[Nytmare]

My first hand knowledge of shields is only really through stage combat, but a LOT of that was blocking choreographed sword hits with steel shields. The round riot shields Tom posted are almost entirely (as others have pointed out) to protect someone from things like rocks and bottles while not impinging their sight. Using those to try and block any kind of attack with a swung weapon are going to be just mildly more effective than blocking it with your arm. There look to be sturdier (mostly thicker) versions out there, but the ones you linked seem extra flimsy.

Supposedly they also make great sleds.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Y'know, if I had kids and lived in a place with snow...