Are cavalry charges lame in your opinion?

[Lord Milky]

What I will say is that I kind of hoped light cav would have a different ai than heavy cav, since their roles are so drastically different.

I like this idea, I feel like light cav should use the current format for cav, the odd charge from flanks, quick in and out engagements. The heavy cav should use more front charges , making use of the armoured horse to really knock back troops.The original knock back effect from charges was removed, which was a shame.

 

[Apocal]

+1 great analysis by five bucks, really sums it all up for me, why would cavalry exist in history if it was so useless, it's like armor why pay for something that does nothing?

Because cavalry didn't only charge blocks of men, in real life. They had other roles beyond only that one thing.

 

[D0c1]

may the creator bless you for your hard work, five bucks.

 

[geala]

+1 great analysis by five bucks, really sums it all up for me, why would cavalry exist in history if it was so useless, it's like armor why pay for something that does nothing?

The problem is that single events are used and in my opinion, interpreted a bit too fundamentally. The constant meta of most historical military writing through the times was/is that firm and disciplined infantry formations were very difficult to impossible to break by cavalry of any kind.

Cavalry was nevertheless very important and often decisive because many times infantry formations lacked consistency and there were also ways to tear infantry down. So there is no clear RPS rule "A could do that with this to B". The effects of cavalry with their often big moral aspects are very difficult to simulate in computer games. Total War for example also never got cavalry right, although it's better than in M+B games.

In BL cavalry should be made better by attacking in formation and keeping formation. And actually hitting something. It should devastate infantry on the move or in loose formation or from back attacks, and it should destroy archers in one attack. On the other hand there should be infantry formations with can take the archers inside to protect them (maybe resulting in a -50% archery effectiveness). I keep on daydreaming ...

 

[Apocal]

The effects of cavalry with their often big moral aspects are very difficult to simulate in computer games. Total War for example also never got cavalry right, although it's better than in M+B games.

They already have he fundamental s in place to simulate it though. All those perks dealing with increased or decreased morale damage per unit-type and the existing morale damage system could account for most of the morale effect of facing a full-on cavalry charge.

TW just doesn't want to do it, because this game is -- first and foremost -- meant for visual spectacle. petmonster straight-up admitted they had dialed back infantry effectiveness against cavalry early on, even though he (and the rest of TW) knew how the majority of cavalry charges were executed, because he didn't think players would be interested in that sort of gameplay.

 

[five bucks]

Cavalry was nevertheless very important and often decisive because many times infantry formations lacked consistency and there were also ways to tear infantry down. So there is no clear RPS rule "A could do that with this to B". The effects of cavalry with their often big moral aspects are very difficult to simulate in computer games.

I fully agree that morale, quality of equipment, terrain, flanking, and formation shape/depth all played a role, and should in Bannerlord too (and sort of do now).

I'm not asking for RPS "hard counters", where X can always beat Y. But I do support soft counters, where X has an advantage against Y (eg: shield infantry has an advantage against ranged infantry) but can still lose due to those factors mentioned above.

While a soft counter system slightly oversimplifies real life, it adds an important tactical element. With a clearly defined soft counter system, you have a reason to send a certain formation to attack a certain formation, instead of just sending your whole blob at the enemy at once.

The constant meta of most historical military writing through the times was/is that firm and disciplined infantry formations were very difficult to impossible to break

What equipment you give your infantry changes how effective they are against cavalry. That trend you mention only exists because throughout history, the majority of infantry were given the most effective weapon against cavalry: long spears.

But, if you don't have a long spear you're much less effective, and if you also have no shield, you're totally vulnerable to a lance charge.

Bannerlord represents infantry with lots of different types of weapons, only some of which are long spears. Captain mode already distinguishes between different types of infantry based on their equipment, and I think singleplayer should too.

The effects of cavalry with their often big moral aspects are very difficult to simulate in computer games. Total War for example also never got cavalry right, although it's better than in M+B games.

Yep, morale is very important. If you have tier 6 banner knights charging tier 1 recruits, the recruits should break and run, like the levies did at Civitate.

In BL cavalry should be made better by attacking in formation and keeping formation. And actually hitting something. It should devastate infantry on the move or in loose formation or from back attacks, and it should destroy archers in one attack.

Agree strongly with all of this, I would only add to it. 1: TW should add bracing long polearms to Singleplayer, obviously. 2: Charging cavalry should also devastate infantry in frontal attacks if they do not have braced polearms or a shieldwall for protection.

If TW fixes lance cavalry's accuracy so they actually hit things like you said, then I think this will naturally come to pass anyway.

 

[froggyluv]

While im certainly no expert in any of this im currently playing TW Attila Medieval 1212 mod and just noticed one of the Battle tips read: "Make sure you stop your infantry for better defense against a charging cavalry"

the thing is Total War only has to check a few variable like "current_group_speed = 2" and if they are low or zero add a simple damage penalty to charging Cav. Bannerlord on the other hand has to really play the full animations out (spear bracing probably as well as transitions) and it has to really line up in a real 3d-world physics oriented way. No simple dice roll qualifiers here.

 

[D0c1]

if they are low or zero add a simple damage penalty to charging Cav

this is a good point. charging horses should recieve damage as they dish out damage.
maybe have it undergo armor calculations.

also, horses should take damage when they hit other cavalry or trees.

not very related but maybe they should turn on friendly fire for horse charges too?

 

[hruza]

Turns out this is wrong too. Here is a horse willingly impaling itself on a sharp stick at the Battle of Bannockburn. "So saying, he spurred in between Beaumont and Sir William Deyncourt and charged into the thick of the enemy. William was killed, Thomas was taken prisoner, his horse being killed on the pikes."

Also at the Battle of the Golden Spurs, you have horses being persuaded to impale themselves on sharp sticks. "The bulk of the French formations carried on their forward momentum and fell on the Flemish in an ear-splitting crash of horses against men.[19] Unable at most points to break the Flemish line of pikemen, many French knights were knocked from their horses and killed. Those cavalry groups that succeeded in breaking through ****note that they even broke through the pikes!**** were surrounded by the reserves and killed."

Didn't find a single horse that impaled itself willingly on a sharp stick in any of those quotes. Horses been impaled or killed in battles does not make them willingly impaling themselves any more then modern soldiers been shoot makes them willingly impaling themselves on bullets.

The more you "argue" like this with zero relevant evidence provided, the more I find evidence that actually convinces me even more how wrong you are, on stuff I would have originally agreed with you about!

Inventing or imagining evidence and finding evidence are two different things.

I also found out about the Battle of Marignano where the French gendarmes repeatedly succeeded in directly charging Swiss pike formations, though not without casualties of course:

I also newer said that pike formations were newer charged and that those charges were newer successful. What I said was that frontal charges against disciplined formed infantry were usually unsuccessful and that cavalry charges were not performed by ramming in to the spears. I did not say that they newer happened or that they were newer successful. You are deliberately twisting what I said and then claiming to beat me in an argument that I have never used. A neat trick. Another example is when you shown horses against broomsticks pretending to be disproving my argument that horses won't deliberately impale themselves on sharp sticks. It's the same kind of fallacy as if you tried to prove that horses are bulletproof by showing video of blank shooting at them.

Further stories from Churchill's combat experience about horses charging directly into fixed bayonets and dying and killing huge numbers of the enemy with the force of the charge!

"Eager warriors sprang forward to anticipate the shock. The rest stood firm to meet it. The Lancers acknowledged the apparition only by an increase of pace. Each man wanted sufficient momentum to drive through such a solid line. The flank troops, seeing that they overlapped, curved inwards like the horns of a moon. But the whole event was a matter of seconds. The riflemen, firing bravely to the last, were swept head over heels into the khor, and jumping down with them, at full gallop and in the closest order, the British squadrons struck the fierce brigade with one loud furious shout. The collision was prodigious. Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred Arabs were overthrown. The shock was stunning to both sides, and for perhaps ten wonderful seconds no man heeded his enemy. Terrified horses wedged in the crowd; bruised and shaken men, sprawling in heaps, struggled, dazed and stupid, to their feet, panted, and looked about them. Several fallen Lancers had even time to remount. Meanwhile the impetus of the cavalry carried them on. As a rider tears through a hedge jump, the officers forced their way through the press; and as an iron rake might be drawn through a heap of shingle, so the regiment followed. They shattered the Dervish array, and, their pace reduced to a walk, scrambled out of the khor on the further side, leaving a score of troopers behind them, and dragging on with the charge more than a thousand Arabs."

Another great example of you inventing the facts. Because words "fixed bayonets" simply aren't there. Plus you have conveniently decided to cut off the part, where English have charged in to an ambush, not knowing that what appears to be just a thin skirmish line on a ridge have larger rebel force hidden in the ravine right behind.

Fixed bayonets my butt:

...that's the Mahdist army Churchill and his fellow men had "charged". Light infantry made of religious fanatic mob armed with shields, swords, javelins and muskets. And even in to them Brits have collided only by an accident, loosing 1/3 of their numbers in the process and failing to accomplish anything. They had to dismount after the "charge" and use their firearms to shoot Mahdists in to retreat.

And now try to replace those pictures with Anglo Saxon shieldwall and try to do a guess how many British horsemen would survive that "collision".

Pages and pages of evidence so far have shattered the single bit of evidence you gave. How much is it going to take for you to just admit you're wrong? Do I have to build a time machine and take you to an actual battle?

At last few examples where citations you bring actually match your claims would help.

Isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to say this when you constantly keep making hypotheticals with zero context or evidence given, such as further down in your post: "Even if horse was so stupid to do it anyway, fact that you have knocked the footmen with the spear only means that horse will impale itself on the spear of the footman behind him."

You're confused here, it was your hypothetical, not mine. I have just shown you that your hypothetical still leads in to a dead horse on a sharp stick.

I have already provided actual evidence regarding the length of spears and pikes. Your only response is "nuh unh it was like this in reality" with no evidence provided for your version of "reality".

You have provided a nice picture of horse been impaled on a spear. I have just told you that you picture supports my argument, not yours. That's all.

Here is evidence-based reality. READ it this time.

As I said earlier: The long pike was uncommon during Bannerlord's time period, a.k.a. the 900s-1100s.

As was the long lance. What you did there is not evidence based reality, that's just cherry picking.

Here the horse doesn't need to know,

Oh he does need to know, that's what "willingly" means.

since (A): I have shown examples of horses being convinced to charge even to their deaths and (B):

No, what you have shown are accidents including panicked horses.

even assuming Machiavelli is correct, he says the horse will stop at "pricking" range,

No, he says: "...either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left."

You keep inventing things nobody said.

which means so long as the rider stays outside "pricking" range (~1m is easily enough) then the rider can bowl over the footman before he stops. As we see in the Napoleonic examples.
If the horse+rider has a 1m range advantage, they are not going to get "impaled" on the first footman's spear, and thus they will definitely not get impaled on the second footman's spear because he is further away.

Except for a minor detail that it only works if horse have stopped, just like Machiavelli said it would. Meanwhile in your theory horse is still running full speed.

Well duh. The point is that horses are not scared of men holding short sticks pointed out at them.

And why would they be scared?

Horses will not have the human knowledge to know that they need to look at the tip of the stick to see if it is sharp.

It's kind of hard to charge directly at a sharp stick pointed on you and not to see it. You don't need human intelligence for that.

Nor do they have the visual capability to easily tell the difference between a sharp and blunt stick.
Horses are partially colorblind, have a blind spot right in front of their face and very poor depth perception due to their eyes being on either side of their head, are often nearsighted, and generally have worse eyesight than humans.

And what has color to do with sharpness?

As for the blind spot and depth perception:

LOL!

In fact, horses tend to have a habit of hurting themselves on sharp things due to not noticing the sharpness.

So do humans. But that's kind of hard thing to not notice when the sharp things are dense rows of spears pointing at you.

Furthermore, it is standard practice for horse trainers to desensitize horses to all sorts of objects that could potentially scare them - such as sharp sticks - through training.

Not a single trace of a "sharp stick" inside that link, you're plain falsifying again.

Which is exactly what any warhorse trainer would do with pikes until the horse was not scared of the sight of them, and would only stop if actually being injured by them. https://cowgirlmagazine.com/police-horses-trained/ and

I have asked you many times to show me sources for "warhorses been trained to crash in to spears". You have provided none. I call it a fake. Been "not scared of the sight of spear" is not the same as "not been scared of impaling itself on them". And you don't need to train horse to not been scared of a sight of spears given they are everywhere, including on the rider that sits on the horse.

Warhorse training is explicitly designed to subdue the horse's survival instincts, and create trust in the rider, convincing the horse that situations which look scary are actually fine.

Source please.

As such, in some cases the horse will literally ride into a brick wall if you tell it to. (Warning: Shows a poor old horse with a stupid rider riding right into a brick wall).

I see spooked horse running in to a wall. And I don't hear or see anybody telling it to do so.

If this had happened -- which it hasn't, by the way -- then go ahead and link to an example of this alleged behaviour occurring.
You can't, because you're literally just describing what you're doing. The truth is that you don't want to go to any effort looking up evidence, and don't want to just admit you're wrong, so you're looking for an easy way out of the argument. One easy example is the lances thing above, where you just repeated yourself, ignored the actual evidence I gave, and provided no evidence at all.

Yes I can:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...red-at-the-moment-suggestions-updated.433527/

You're completely unwilling to be convinced. But I don't have to convince you, I think anyone else reading this should be convinced enough by now.

Or you're very unconvincing. Thanks but I'll go with actual historical sources written by people like Machiavelli who wrote actual military manuals and commanded soldiers as well as historians that studied historical cavalry like Gassmann rather then somebody who shows broomsticks, spooked horse accidents videos as their "evidence" and claims that 5 cm blind spot in front of the horses nose will make it happily ram line of spearmen without noticing them.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

blah blah blah. Cool pictures thou

 

[hruza]

The original knock back effect from charges was removed, which was a shame.

The best change Bannerlord did to cavalry. Well, Viking Conquest did that before, but that was developed by different team.

Changes made to combat in Bannerlord compared to Warband are generally for better. That doesn't mean that there are no problems in Bannerold, but combat is more realistic, functional, with better AI and more enjoyable then in Warband. That goes especially for cavalry of all kinds, heavy, skirmish and horse archers. Heavy one is not OP anymore and skirmish and horse archers are not useless.

That some players can't plow through Rhodoks sergeants on their charger anymore with impunity might be annoying for those that used to like it, but that's a minor price to pay for better, more balanced gameplay.

this is a good point. charging horses should recieve damage as they dish out damage.
maybe have it undergo armor calculations.

also, horses should take damage when they hit other cavalry or trees.

not very related but maybe they should turn on friendly fire for horse charges too?

Yes, that's the point I keep bringing when people start with why I can't ram footmen to death with my horse. There is this thing called physic and action-reaction law. Collision works both ways, it damages object been collided to but also object that collides and with equal force.

In game terms it would mean that the exact same damage would be applied to both horse and footman on collision. Horse might just get larger HP pool to represent it been bigger.

Problem with this is that in real life cavalry would prevent that by simply avoiding collision. See the quote from Machiavelli I have provided. But in Bannerlord AI isn't very good in preventing collisions. It's probably not that devs can't make it better, it's that they have to keep it very simple to support huge number of AI actors (soldiers) in a battle -each running it's own AI routine. Turning realistic collision on would just make AI kill itself by bumping in to objects and each other.

 

[D0c1]

Yes, that's the point I keep bringing when people start with why I can't ram footmen to death with my horse. There is this thing called physic and action-reaction law. Collision works both ways, it damages object been collided to but also object that collides and with equal force.

desclaimer: i suck at physics.
but when a truck runs into a car, the car get damaged much more than the truck. maybe it has something to do with momentum and the weight difference between them.
but horses should recieve some damage at least. maybe mitigated by armor for for gameplay purposes. i don't think they'll come up with extra damage type or tie armor material with damage type mitigation.

but cavalry running into each other at full speed should just ragdoll imo.

 

[hruza]

desclaimer: i suck at physics.
but when a truck runs into a car, the car get damaged much more than the truck. maybe it has something to do with momentum and the weight difference between them.

It actually has nothing to do with either weight difference nor momentum. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That's the Newtons third law. What that means is that during collision, equal force apply both ways and is calculated as a sum of weight and momentum of both objects colliding. Increasing weight and momentum of colliding object just raise that force.

You can easily test that by hitting a wall. Faster, therefore with more momentum you hit it, bigger the pain.

The difference of the size lies in the % of the damage that objects take. When truck hits a car, the damage received can be equal. But in the case of Truck it can be 20% of the total and in the case of car 90%.

Besides, there is difference in properties of the objects that determine how and if force will result in permanent damage to the object. Some force can be absorbed, by elasticity of the object, by changing to the heat, sound and so on. When you kick football ball at the large window, force applied at both is equal, but window will shatter while ball will remain undamaged. That's because window is hard but brittle while ball is soft and elastic. Force will deform the ball, but it's not permanent deformation thanks to elasticity of the ball. Same with truck and the car. Truck is made of thicker sheets and framework then a car. It have to be because it's larger and heavier and thus needs more structural toughness to hold it together.

Horse and people are made of principally the same materials with the same properties. But horse is sturdier thanks to bigger bones and larger muscles. Therefore collision between the two will be more harmful to the human then the horse, even if force been applied is equal. But if force is large enough, it will cause a damage to the horse. That's why I said that in game terms, damage should be the same but horse should have larger HP.

And then mechanically humans and horses are not simple objects. Arms, legs, heads are not rigidly attached to each other and during collision they act as semi independent objects. So if the horse hits human at certain angle and spot, it's possible that human will survive without much damage while horse will receive say broken leg. But that's far beyond simple representation of physic in games like this and beyond their purpose. This is not realistic physic simulator so simple abstraction is what is required. What one could do to represent this is some RNG in damage calculation.

And then if you wanted to go to the end, colliding horse in to infantry line should send rider flaying to the ground and receive fall damage.

but horses should recieve some damage at least. maybe mitigated by armor for for gameplay purposes. i don't think they'll come up with extra damage type or tie armor material with damage type mitigation.

Well you can do it both ways, either you apply the same damage and make horse HP higher as I have suggested or you make the HP the same and reduce damage on the horse (or something in between). You will accomplish the same thing but my way is I believe more representative of the real physic.

Either way, I principally agree with you.

 

[froggyluv]

When truck hits a car, the damage received can be equal. But in the case of Truck it can be 20% of the total and in the case of car 90%.

Uh no. Maybe the force was the same scientifically speaking but the damage is the end result and they will not be the same. thats why people will say "I took all the damage in the accident" not "well my car is ruined your truck is fine but we took equal damage"

 

[hruza]

Uh no. Maybe the force was the same scientifically speaking but the damage is the end result and they will not be the same. thats why people will say "I took all the damage in the accident" not "well my car is ruined your truck is fine but we took equal damage"

In classical mechanics, Newton's laws of motion are three laws that describe the relationship between the motion of an object and the forces acting on it. The first law states that an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless it is acted upon by an external force.[1] The second law states that the rate of change of momentum of an object is directly proportional to the force applied, or, for an object with constant mass, that the net force on an object is equal to the mass of that object multiplied by the acceleration. The third law states that when one object exerts a force on a second object, that second object exerts a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first object.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Pretty sure trucks and cars are not exempt from laws of physic. Nor are men and horses.

 

[froggyluv]

In classical mechanics, Newton's laws of motion are three laws that describe the relationship between the motion of an object and the forces acting on it. The first law states that an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless it is acted upon by an external force.[1] The second law states that the rate of change of momentum of an object is directly proportional to the force applied, or, for an object with constant mass, that the net force on an object is equal to the mass of that object multiplied by the acceleration. The third law states that when one object exerts a force on a second object, that second object exerts a force that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first object.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

Pretty sure trucks and cars are not exempt from laws of physic. Nor are men and horses.

Dude are you daft - I said the force may be the same scientifically but that DAMAGE - which is the results of said force may be drastically different. Stop quoting long winded Wikipedia which have no bearing on what I stated. Pretty sure horses and men would agree

 

[Philozoraptor]

Car has 100 hp, truck has 1000 hp. They both take 120 damage. Car is devasted truck is relativelly OK. Also smaller percentage of the trucks surface is hit than in case of car, so even if car has better penetration, only relativelly small part of the truck is hit while car is pretty much hit in its entirety.

Also:


"The horse did not break its legs and it was not put down, it had some bruising on its shins and went back to racing."

It was fragile racing horse with no armor, rider had no armor and was probably low weight so much less weight (momentum, maybe even KE - not sure about this since racing horse go probably faster than charging warhorse) and "HP" than warhorses and knights in BL era. Also its anecdotal but I remember modern joust reanactor (maybe it was modern history YT channel) saying that one time he experienced accidental charge of a horse into bystanding "squire" and that the squire was knocked down for few minutes while horse was totally OK.

BTW: I am not saying that cav charged infantry lines frontally all the time, just saying that impact with human even at high speed does not equal instant death for horse(heard that argument before).

 

[hruza]

BTW: I am not saying that cav charged infantry lines frontally all the time, just saying that impact with human even at high speed does not equal instant death for horse(heard that argument before).

Yes but A, it does not equal instant death for the footman either, B, we are talking collision in to the formation of men and C, you don't need to kill or disable the horse, you just need to disable the rider. On that video horse had came out with bruises, but rider ended up in a hospital with brain trauma and spend couple of weeks there. On the battlefield that would be effectively minus one cavalry.

Physically ramming horses in to infantry line makes no sense from any point you look at it. From point of the horse, it will not willingly impale itself, from the point of rider if he does not end up legs up on the ground with brain trauma or even impaled on a pike, he will end up static fixed on a large horse in the middle of the very angry group of men with sharp sticks all wanting to do him harm and from the point of economy of force, exchanging your super expensive heavy cavalry for footmen is a loosing proposition. Footmen are normally far cheaper and easier to get.

That of course does not mean that no horse ever collided in to infantry line. In battles and war all sorts of bs happens all the time. As do some exceptional deeds. What I am talking about are not accidents or exceptions, I am talking about more or less standard tactics used by the people at that time.

For a cavalry charge against formed and disciplined heavy infantry to succeed, it needed to exploit a weakness. Which cavalry was well able because of the much higher mobility. There is really no other advantage that cavalry had over footmen, cavalry can't form as densely as infantry, therefore tactically in line on line fight, cavalryman is hopelessly outnumbered. He is very limited in ability to move as he is fixed atop of the horse. His ability to fight is severely impaired in number of angles and in some angles, he can't fight at all. Standing still on his horse, he is large and exposed target.

What he can do better then footman is to move over distance fast. He can easily avoid attack from a footmen when he chooses to and attack the footmen at the time of his choosing. Cavalry has what is in military terms called initiative. It can choose where and when to fight. In real combat, initiative is a huge thing. Unfortunately that's a very hard thing to effectively simulate in the computer game like this.

So what is weakness of a infantry formation? Flank and rear are the natural weaknesses and mobility of cavalry makes is easy to exploit it. And sure enough, historical battle after historical battle, when infantry faced enemy with cavalry advantage, they tried to fix their flanks in to some natural or man made obstacle. In the absence of exposed flank, frontal cavalry charge can still be attempted but it have much lower chance of succeeding. It needs to create a weak spot in a line. May be somebody will fail to hold his nerve or waver, may be cavalry can mount a fake retreat and lure infantry to break the formation in pursuit. If there is a gap that even few horsemen can pass through, infantry formation will fall apart as a house of cards, because men will not stand still and hold formation as somebody is attacking them from behind. Then cavalry can just run them down. But as long as infantry holds it's nerve and maintains formation, there is little cavalry can do.

Lord of the Rings or Total War collisions? Nope, sorry that's not how cavalry charges worked. Horse was a transport, not a weapon. And very expensive at that. Horse was for moving around, for fighting cavalry still had actual weapons, spears and swords.

Unfortunately this is not easy to simulate in a game. MB AI bot will happily stand in formation when been attacked from behind. "Weakness" of the infantry formation is difficult to simulate in a mechanic that does not effectively simulate psychological factors and where bots feel no pain or fear. Where standing and not standing in formation makes no difference and where simplistic AI is not very good at preventing collisions.

 

[D0c1]

can someone please read this and translate it to layman terms?

Phys 152 Good For

webphysics.iupui.edu

i found this interesting

Newton's third law requires that the forces acting on two interacting (colliding) objects will be equal and opposite. Your textbook shows how Newton's third law implies conservation of total linear momentum. The change in momentum of one colliding vehicle is accompanied by an equal and opposite change of momentum of the other vehicle.

and this

When a light car and a massive truck collide, momentum conservation requires that


the change in MtruckXvtruck = the change in McarXvcar
Note that an object with large mass will experience a smaller change in speed than the object with the small mass. As the occupant of the vehicle it is in your interest that the vehicle does not undergo big changes in speed in a short time. Since you yourself are a moving object subject to Newton's laws, you will need external forces yourself to change your motion. These will come from the seat, the seat belt, airbags or other parts of the vehicle such as the steering column.

If the vehicle comes to a stop, or if the speed is substantially decreased, the lost kinetic energy of the vehicle transforms into some other form. This process will involve work, the integral of force with respect to displacement. The bigger the displacement the weaker the force (and damage and injury.) Hard stationary objects don't allow much displacement and cause more damage and injury than soft, movable or breakaway objects.

am i misunderstanding or does this mean that objects with higher speed+weight experience less damage?

 

[hruza]

can someone please read this and translate it to layman terms?

Phys 152 Good For

webphysics.iupui.edu

i found this interesting

and this

am i misunderstanding or does this mean that objects with higher speed+weight experience less damage?

No, they experience less change of momentum, because they have more mass and speed. Or in other words, it's harder to change speed and direction of movement of a object with larger mass and speed. Or in yet other terms, when two objects collide, object with bigger mass and speed will change speed and direction of object with less mass and speed more then vice versa.

The last part deals about how force is transferred to energy and work and how much of that is changed either in to displacing the object, that is changing it's speed and direction and how much is turned in to other things, like damage. The objects that are harder to change speed and direction, that is the more massive ones, will take more damage then objects with less mass, because objects with large mass are harder to displace.

So in case of the truck and car colliding, more portion of the force of the impact will cause damage to the truck, because truck is harder to displace then a car.