AOSC Forum Archive

I know, no moving cover, this is just for a weird thought. How effective do you think a phalanx, consisting of riot shields and training gladii, would be in CQB scenarios of course, on a large field it'd be useless.

Example Equipment
Shield: http://www.evike.com/product_info.php?products_id=34722
Gladius: http://www.smkw.com/webapp/eCommerce/pr ... 2BKGM.html

Fiendish and successful or complete failure ?
Once again, I know there is no moving cover so this wouldn't be permitted.

As has been stated many times in the past. Riot shields are not rated to stop a round from an assault rifle. Riot shields are used for riot control not to stop bullets. Ballistic shields are much heavier than riot shields.

I know, but since it's airsoft and not real munitions I don't really think it matters whether it's a mock of a ballistic or riot control shield. Wait, you do know I'm talking about airsoft guns right ? I'm pretty sure a strong sheet of lexan can withstand plastic bbs at ~400 fps.

Stixx wrote:Uh you do know I'm talking about airsoft guns right ? I'm pretty sure a strong sheet of lexan can withstand plastic bbs at ~400 fps.

Your post deserves no response. If you don't understand what I was saying, then there is no use in me trying to explain it to you.

This set up would be completely useless for outdoor fields. You may be able to use it in CQB settings, but the chances are you will be flanked and just get shot in the butt crack before you know it.

And I'm sure Gambler is speaking in the view of realism.

A properly assembled shield formation like a testudo (shields pointing all directions like armies used to do) would be more or less impenetrable and therefore very unrealistic. A phalanx would be unrealistic and ridiculously easy to eliminate.

For example... FRAG OUT!

You may want to brush up on very basic military history terminology. There are two usual types of phalanx, and neither involves a Gladius Hispaniensis (A short sword developed by Iberians, later adopted and made famous by the Romans). One form is the original Greek formation in which a hoplon (a large round shield that covered the left side of ones torso as well as the right side of the man adjacent in the formation) was used in conjunction with a medium length spear (doru), and the latter development is that of the Macedonians under King Phillip that used the much longer spear (sarissa) and considerably smaller shields (pelte) that attached to ones forearm so that one could use both hands to wield the sarissa.

Dominum wrote:You may want to brush up on very basic military history terminology. There are two usual types of phalanx, and neither involves a Gladius Hispaniensis (A short sword developed by Iberians, later adopted and made famous by the Romans). One form is the original Greek formation in which a hoplon (a large round shield that covered the left side of ones torso as well as the right side of the man adjacent in the formation) was used in conjunction with a medium length spear (doru), and the latter development is that of the Macedonians under King Phillip that used the much longer spear (sarissa) and considerably smaller shields (pelte) that attached to ones forearm so that one could use both hands to wield the sarissa.

DOM KNOWS EVERYTHING!!!

Stixx wrote:I know, no moving cover, this is just for a weird thought. How effective do you think a phalanx, consisting of riot shields and training gladius, would be in CQB scenarios of course, on a large field it'd be useless.

This part of the statement made me laugh really hard to the point where I had an abdominal workout lol